Wednesday, June 30, 2004
Sennheiser PX-100 headphones
I had a nice pair of portable headphones that I bought from Radio Shack ages ago, but I seem to have lost them on my most recent plane trip. My "backup" pair sounds pretty good, but the foam on the earpieces has worn out enough that the headphones are painful to use for more than about 7 minutes. I tried finding replacement pieces of foam (did you know Radio Shack sells those?) but the earpieces are too big for the medium foam pieces and too small for the large foam pieces. I visited consumerreports.com and they gave a glowing recommendation to a nice inexpensive pair of Sony headphones. I looked at Amazon's page for them, and while some people really loved them, other people didn't like them so much. Granted, I can assume part of that is because of elevated expectations (a review or two talked about how consumerreports.com led them to expect more than they got), but I figured I might as well surf a little more on Amazon. I found a Listmania from
"Samuel Chell, professional musician", and his comments were clear and sane (two things I rarely expect from audio hardware reviews ;-). His short summary of the Sennheiser PX-100s is, "Unbeatable practicality, wearability, sound. Best all-around value." When I visited the Amazon page for the headphones, I found a lot of extremely positive comments, and not very many negative ones. I then tried surfing bestbuy.com and circuitcity.com to see if any of the local stores had them in stock. No such luck. I decided to go ahead and bite the bullet and order from Amazon.
Well, my Amazon package just arrived 20 minutes ago (about a week ahead of when Amazon predicted; they know how to under-promise and over-deliver ;-) and so far the Sennheisers do indeed live up to their terrific word-of-mouth. I'm listening to the Once More, With Feeling Soundtrack CD (and yes, someday I really need to write up my feelings about "Once More, With Feeling") and I'm hearing details that my stereo didn't reveal. Indeed, I can hear that some parts of "Something To Sing About" were recorded in an echoey room while others weren't ;-).
If you need a not-too-expensive ($50 list, $40 from Amazon) comfortable pair of portable headphones that sound very nice and include a convenient carrying case (which I didn't expect!), you could do worse than the PX-100s.
"Samuel Chell, professional musician", and his comments were clear and sane (two things I rarely expect from audio hardware reviews ;-). His short summary of the Sennheiser PX-100s is, "Unbeatable practicality, wearability, sound. Best all-around value." When I visited the Amazon page for the headphones, I found a lot of extremely positive comments, and not very many negative ones. I then tried surfing bestbuy.com and circuitcity.com to see if any of the local stores had them in stock. No such luck. I decided to go ahead and bite the bullet and order from Amazon.
Well, my Amazon package just arrived 20 minutes ago (about a week ahead of when Amazon predicted; they know how to under-promise and over-deliver ;-) and so far the Sennheisers do indeed live up to their terrific word-of-mouth. I'm listening to the Once More, With Feeling Soundtrack CD (and yes, someday I really need to write up my feelings about "Once More, With Feeling") and I'm hearing details that my stereo didn't reveal. Indeed, I can hear that some parts of "Something To Sing About" were recorded in an echoey room while others weren't ;-).
If you need a not-too-expensive ($50 list, $40 from Amazon) comfortable pair of portable headphones that sound very nice and include a convenient carrying case (which I didn't expect!), you could do worse than the PX-100s.
Sunday, June 27, 2004
Deleting unwanted voice messages quickly with Verizon Wireless
“By-the-way, for Verizon Wireless customers who also are frustrated with this ripoff, here's a tip: If you hear a message you want to delete, press "33" and the message immediately goes to the end. You may then press "7" to delete. Here's another tip: Press "7" and the pound (#) key. If you don't press #, the system might alert you that you have a voice mail message when you don't. I was told the trick about pressing "33" was not in the voice mail manual.”
Buffy, the Vampire Slayer
Buffy the Vampire Slayer is probably the best-written TV series of the fantastic that's ever been (IMHO, anyway). Since I tend to weight writing quality in art higher than most of my friends, that makes it (almost) my all-time favorite TV series of the fantastic. (I say "almost" because spin-off series Angel is pretty much just as good, though it's got a rather darker and different feel—and because, ultimately, my heart belongs to Space: 1999.)
Despite this, I've never seen an episode of Buffy on broadcast TV; friends of ours pushed the first season DVD boxed set on us, and said, "Watch this!". Then other friends pushed the second season DVD boxed set on us ;-). When we finally got around to watching the first season, I was impressed; the second season pretty much made me a lifelong fan. The writers of the series took a well-liked character (and well-liked relationship) and decided they needed to take a huge gamble—and it paid off spectacularly, with repercussions still felt years later. (Indeed, I suspect the repercussions will be felt until the end of Buffy, but we haven't seen past the first third of Season Six ;-).
What makes Buffy (and Angel) so special? Well, the writing ;-). If you've grown up on television, as most members of my generation did, you'll have grown up with certain storytelling conventions and clichés. Buffy is the product of Joss Whedon, who "could arguably be the world's first third-generation television writer" (to quote the IMDB biography of Joss Whedon). Joss is very aware of these storytelling clichés and delights in subverting them at every turn. The very first scene of the very first Buffy episode is a horror-movie cliché—until it turns on its head.
One of the reasons I don't watch TV any more is that most modern TV shows are stunningly predictable; it feels like most TV writers just stack the conventions and clichés together to fill air time. It often felt like you can see the first few minutes of, say, Star Trek: Voyager, and trivially predict the rest of the episode. (Or you can watch the last few minutes and know the 40 minutes that came before.) Even worse, sometimes my stupid predictions are better than what the show ends up using. I have far more interesting things to do with my time.
Buffy and Angel aren't like this at all—most episodes have plenty of twists and turns, and it's hard to predict what will happen in the next few minutes, let alone for the rest of the episode. But after you've seen all the twists and surprises, you realize that they make perfect sense—and are far better than the standard clichés, and are better than what you could have come up with on your own. This, for me, is the essence of good writing.
Despite this, I've never seen an episode of Buffy on broadcast TV; friends of ours pushed the first season DVD boxed set on us, and said, "Watch this!". Then other friends pushed the second season DVD boxed set on us ;-). When we finally got around to watching the first season, I was impressed; the second season pretty much made me a lifelong fan. The writers of the series took a well-liked character (and well-liked relationship) and decided they needed to take a huge gamble—and it paid off spectacularly, with repercussions still felt years later. (Indeed, I suspect the repercussions will be felt until the end of Buffy, but we haven't seen past the first third of Season Six ;-).
What makes Buffy (and Angel) so special? Well, the writing ;-). If you've grown up on television, as most members of my generation did, you'll have grown up with certain storytelling conventions and clichés. Buffy is the product of Joss Whedon, who "could arguably be the world's first third-generation television writer" (to quote the IMDB biography of Joss Whedon). Joss is very aware of these storytelling clichés and delights in subverting them at every turn. The very first scene of the very first Buffy episode is a horror-movie cliché—until it turns on its head.
One of the reasons I don't watch TV any more is that most modern TV shows are stunningly predictable; it feels like most TV writers just stack the conventions and clichés together to fill air time. It often felt like you can see the first few minutes of, say, Star Trek: Voyager, and trivially predict the rest of the episode. (Or you can watch the last few minutes and know the 40 minutes that came before.) Even worse, sometimes my stupid predictions are better than what the show ends up using. I have far more interesting things to do with my time.
Buffy and Angel aren't like this at all—most episodes have plenty of twists and turns, and it's hard to predict what will happen in the next few minutes, let alone for the rest of the episode. But after you've seen all the twists and surprises, you realize that they make perfect sense—and are far better than the standard clichés, and are better than what you could have come up with on your own. This, for me, is the essence of good writing.
Friday, June 25, 2004
Spin State
Last night, we discussed Spin State at the Bloomington, Indiana Science Fiction Discussion Group, of which I am the President for life ;-). For most books, it feels like some people end up loving the book, and some people end up hating it. (There are a few books, perhaps a handful, that "everyone" loves—Hyperion and A Fire Upon the Deep come to mind. That can change over time—but I'll get to that shortly.)
Anyway, we know each other fairly well and are very comfortable with each other in this setting, so people don't hesitate to shout, interrupt, and make fun of each other's comments (though in a good-natured way ;-).
I didn't care for Spin State. Last night, the main complaints I gave were that
This morning it occurs to me that I have a couple other problems with the book that arguably had a bigger impact on me:
Now, for me, item #1 immediately above is deadly—if I go in to something with high expectations, then I tend to become very critical, and if I find flaws, I tend to be scathing about them. I'm not alone in this; I think that much of the negative reaction the movie-reviewing-industrial complex had to the Star Wars prequels was for the same reason. Also, Ignacio, my second-in-command at the SFDG, had a strongly negative response to A Fire Upon the Deep when he read it a few years after the rest of us, and I'm sure that was at least partly due to the wild praise the rest of us heaped on the book.
Only a very few things can live up to my elevated expectations—and when I find something that does, like Donnie Darko, I usually fall in love with it. Indeed, Donnie Darko is probably the film I like best of all the ones released in the 21st century so far.
But deadly as #1 is, #2 is even deadlier.
I made a comment about this at the SFDG meeting when we discussed Riddley Walker—I think the phrase I used was "The Politics of Prose". Basically, I believe that clear communication is usually the best thing an artist should strive for. This is partly why I love Sir Arthur C. Clarke's prose style—other members of the SFDG tend to say that Clarke is a bad stylist, but I think he's one of the best in Science Fiction. I think his style is incredibly elegant; on a line-by-line basis, he doesn't waste words, and when he does put in an occasional flourish, it stands out all the more. When the SFDG discussed Rendezvous with Rama, the meeting was "run" by one of the biggest fans of Riddley Walker (he brought the book back into print), and I remember him saying repeatedly that Clarke was a bad writer because Clarke's style was pedestrian and there was no characterization in the book. I think I asked him more than once how could such a bad writer have given all of us such a clear and vivid and detailed mental picture of the interior of Rama? I don't think John ever answered that.
Don't get me wrong—I don't think that John is "wrong" to dislike Clarke's style (though I think he is wrong to imply that it shows a lack of literary polish or ability on Clarke's part). All I mean is that some people like prose that "challenges" the reader to follow the story and figure out what is going on, and some people like prose that makes it all clear. I'm definitely in the second camp. (Though, of course, there are some writers I adore who don't strive for absolute clarity—James Tiptree, Jr. comes to mind, and there is nothing wrong with her writing.) I tend to view obfuscatory prose as, well, obfuscatory prose. If you've got a story to tell, tell it plainly. If you're going to pull a fast one on the reader, you can do it by making the story so muddled that the reader can't keep track of what's going on (e.g., Spin State)—or you can tell what seems like a perfectly straightforward story and only later make the reader realize the story is completely different from what they thought it was. My favorite example of the latter is Dan Simmons's Hyperion—and it's still the highest-rated book we've ever discussed in the SFDG.
Anyway, we know each other fairly well and are very comfortable with each other in this setting, so people don't hesitate to shout, interrupt, and make fun of each other's comments (though in a good-natured way ;-).
I didn't care for Spin State. Last night, the main complaints I gave were that
- It's incredibly bloated (last night, I said something like, "There's an excellent 250-page novel struggling to get out of this [477-page] mess.")
- There are too many characters who I couldn't tell apart from each other.
- The style, on a line-by-line basis, put me to sleep.
This morning it occurs to me that I have a couple other problems with the book that arguably had a bigger impact on me:
- Early praise of the book on our mailing list made me go in with very high expectations.
- I found it a real struggle just to keep track of what was happening—the book seemed very unclear to me.
Now, for me, item #1 immediately above is deadly—if I go in to something with high expectations, then I tend to become very critical, and if I find flaws, I tend to be scathing about them. I'm not alone in this; I think that much of the negative reaction the movie-reviewing-industrial complex had to the Star Wars prequels was for the same reason. Also, Ignacio, my second-in-command at the SFDG, had a strongly negative response to A Fire Upon the Deep when he read it a few years after the rest of us, and I'm sure that was at least partly due to the wild praise the rest of us heaped on the book.
Only a very few things can live up to my elevated expectations—and when I find something that does, like Donnie Darko, I usually fall in love with it. Indeed, Donnie Darko is probably the film I like best of all the ones released in the 21st century so far.
But deadly as #1 is, #2 is even deadlier.
I made a comment about this at the SFDG meeting when we discussed Riddley Walker—I think the phrase I used was "The Politics of Prose". Basically, I believe that clear communication is usually the best thing an artist should strive for. This is partly why I love Sir Arthur C. Clarke's prose style—other members of the SFDG tend to say that Clarke is a bad stylist, but I think he's one of the best in Science Fiction. I think his style is incredibly elegant; on a line-by-line basis, he doesn't waste words, and when he does put in an occasional flourish, it stands out all the more. When the SFDG discussed Rendezvous with Rama, the meeting was "run" by one of the biggest fans of Riddley Walker (he brought the book back into print), and I remember him saying repeatedly that Clarke was a bad writer because Clarke's style was pedestrian and there was no characterization in the book. I think I asked him more than once how could such a bad writer have given all of us such a clear and vivid and detailed mental picture of the interior of Rama? I don't think John ever answered that.
Don't get me wrong—I don't think that John is "wrong" to dislike Clarke's style (though I think he is wrong to imply that it shows a lack of literary polish or ability on Clarke's part). All I mean is that some people like prose that "challenges" the reader to follow the story and figure out what is going on, and some people like prose that makes it all clear. I'm definitely in the second camp. (Though, of course, there are some writers I adore who don't strive for absolute clarity—James Tiptree, Jr. comes to mind, and there is nothing wrong with her writing.) I tend to view obfuscatory prose as, well, obfuscatory prose. If you've got a story to tell, tell it plainly. If you're going to pull a fast one on the reader, you can do it by making the story so muddled that the reader can't keep track of what's going on (e.g., Spin State)—or you can tell what seems like a perfectly straightforward story and only later make the reader realize the story is completely different from what they thought it was. My favorite example of the latter is Dan Simmons's Hyperion—and it's still the highest-rated book we've ever discussed in the SFDG.
Shout out to Kate Holden
As the kids say today, a shout out to Kate Holden, who said last night that she reads my blog and found some bits of it interesting. Thanks, Kate ;-).
Thursday, June 24, 2004
Red Dwarf Season Two
I found Red Dwarf Season Two (or Second Series, as they would say in the UK) to be rather more entertaining than the first season. There were only six episodes, but "Better than Life", "Thanks for the Memory", "Stasis Leak", "Queeg", and especially "Parallel Universe" strike me as excellent. The last, in particular, presents one of the funniest satires I've seen of a subject that is near and dear to my heart (feminism).
The commentary tracks aren't that good if you're looking for details of how the series was filmed; it's more like the actors getting together years later and making fun of each other. But that's fun in its own right ;-). Sample quote: "Couldn't we have done that with dodgy acting?" "We're doing that with dodgy acting.".
The commentary tracks aren't that good if you're looking for details of how the series was filmed; it's more like the actors getting together years later and making fun of each other. But that's fun in its own right ;-). Sample quote: "Couldn't we have done that with dodgy acting?" "We're doing that with dodgy acting.".
Tuesday, June 22, 2004
Problems with first private spaceflight
It turns out that some of the problems Mike Melvill had during yesterday's flight were potentially catastrophic. "Until the team fully understands exactly what went wrong during the flight, he [Burt Rutan] said, they will not go ahead with the pair of flights needed to claim the $10 million Ansari X-Prize."
Monday, June 21, 2004
SpaceShip One's first flight to space
The most exciting news story today, and the story that is mostly likely to have this day go down in history, is that the Scaled Composites flight of SpaceShip One succeeded this morning ;-). The engine cut off prematurely, and pilot Mike Melvill reported some loud bangs, but he did make it to an altitude of 100km (internationally considered the edge of space) and fly back to the Mojave runway. He is the first person to enter space in a vehicle built without government sponsorship ;-).
Some good URLs (which'll probably rot very fast):
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/ss1/040620preview.html
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/ss1/status.html
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/06/21/suborbital.test/index.html
At the risk of trying to seem geekier than thou, let me remind you that Christopher Pike, the Enterprise captain who immediately preceded James Kirk, was born in Mojave; you can see a glimpse of it as a bustling city in "The Cage" (and "The Menagerie"). Currently Mojave is a small town indeed; as of the census of 2000, there were 3,836 people. But if it truly becomes a spaceport, I can easily imagine it growing exponentially.
Some good URLs (which'll probably rot very fast):
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/ss1/040620preview.html
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/ss1/status.html
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/06/21/suborbital.test/index.html
At the risk of trying to seem geekier than thou, let me remind you that Christopher Pike, the Enterprise captain who immediately preceded James Kirk, was born in Mojave; you can see a glimpse of it as a bustling city in "The Cage" (and "The Menagerie"). Currently Mojave is a small town indeed; as of the census of 2000, there were 3,836 people. But if it truly becomes a spaceport, I can easily imagine it growing exponentially.
Thirty Years with Computers
Interesting column by Jakob Nielsen, usability guru, on what computers were like when he first started using them 30 years ago and what they'll likely be like in 2034 (applying Moore's Law, etc). Alas, it looks like we'll only get decent screen resolution about then (and I'll be 69 years old :-/.
Sunday, June 20, 2004
Hard as Nails
Dan Simmons's third Joe Kurtz novel is another hilarious, dark, and ultra-violent fast-paced read. This one is perhaps the weakest of the three; at least I found it more confusing. (This may perhaps be because Kurtz has a head wound through most of the novel, and Simmons does a good job of transmitting the viewpoint character's mental state to the reader ;-). Still, it has some really great lines, especially the opening: "On the day he was shot in the head, things were going strangely well for Joe Kurtz." As soon as I read that, I wanted to read the whole book in one setting, and resented the other book I had to read instead ;-). (ISBN 0-312-30528-1. I finished reading it on June 16, 2004 and I rate it 8 of 10.)
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
We saw this a week ago (Sunday June 13) and it was quite fun. The critical consensus seems right on; this is the best of the Harry Potter films as a film; sure, it's least true to the novel (for instance, none of the characters wear school uniforms any more), but only nitpickers would complain. On the plus side, director Alfonso Cuarón does a terrific job of keeping the movie (and the camera) moving dynamically.
Some good online reviews: James Berardinelli's, MovieMom's, and Roger Ebert's
Some good online reviews: James Berardinelli's, MovieMom's, and Roger Ebert's
New X meN vol. 1
Ok, see if you can follow this: Marvel publishes Grant Morrison's run on New X-Men in two forms: A set of trade paperback collections (such as E Is for Extinction reviewed below) and oversized hardcover collections. After I picked up E Is for Extinction, I started picking up the hardcovers instead. Confusingly, both are referred to as New X-Men Volume 1, New X-Men Volume 2, etc; the hardcover Volume 1 is a proper superset of volumes 1 and 2 of the trade paperbacks. And Amazon doesn't make it easy to find either. Sigh. (But the link in this headline will go directly to the right Amazon page, and if you order, I'll get a couple quarters or so. ;-)
Tuesday, June 15, 2004
Two from Slashdot
If you can get past (or better yet, not bother to read) the rancorous comments at the bottom, Slashdot had a couple of quite interesting Q&A pages recently. One, by Mike Godwin (of the EFF) was a lawyer's answers to frequent cyberlaw questions. The other piece had Indian Techies Answer About 'Onshore Insourcing'.
Microsoft's Sacred Cash Cow
An interesting view of some possible vulnerabilities for Microsoft (e.g., they are so big that only billion-dollar products are really worth their time). There's also an interesting Follow up to Microsoft's Sacred Cow by the same author.
Addicting Games
Stay away from this URI! No, seriously!
Sunday, June 13, 2004
"He tripled the national debt, but he had such charisma!"
This may not be a stable URL, so read it while you can. I think this is a good antidote to all the “Saint Ron” stuff blanketing the media right now.
Troy
We went to see Troy yesterday and it turned out rather better than I expected, given the lukewarm critical response. I admit: I feel about Brad Pitt the way most people seem to feel about Tom Cruise, but his portrayal of Achilles was very good; he's quite unlikable at first, but by the end you feel for him. Indeed, everything was quite good, especially some of the acting; Julie didn't like the movie as much as I did, saying there was "too much posing", but she thought Peter O'Toole made the movie, and I agree he did a terrific job.
I have two complaints about the film: The music was bombastic and annoying, especially the dirge (don't recall if it was intended as such) over the end credits, and the wide variety of English accents (American, British, vaguely European) occasionally threw me. But these are nitpicks; I definitely recommend the film.
(Another nitpick is that while the CGI was mostly seamless, I do recall one scene [a "crane shot" of thousands of soldiers walking over the beach] that looked fakey—after a few seconds, I realized that there didn't seem to be appropriate shadows. Maybe it was supposed to be taking place at noon.)
One complaint about the venue: A kid sitting behind (and to the left) of us seemed to have an attention deficit; he would periodically stamp on the floor or make plucking noises with his mouth. It wasn't loud enough to ruin the movie, but it did ruin my ability to concentrate in some spots.
(See also Orson Scott Card's review of the film. Alas, it seems as if the film didn't make much money, so they're unlikely to return to the story; I would love to see the same team tackle the Odyssey, especially given who they cast as Odysseus here ;-).
I have two complaints about the film: The music was bombastic and annoying, especially the dirge (don't recall if it was intended as such) over the end credits, and the wide variety of English accents (American, British, vaguely European) occasionally threw me. But these are nitpicks; I definitely recommend the film.
(Another nitpick is that while the CGI was mostly seamless, I do recall one scene [a "crane shot" of thousands of soldiers walking over the beach] that looked fakey—after a few seconds, I realized that there didn't seem to be appropriate shadows. Maybe it was supposed to be taking place at noon.)
One complaint about the venue: A kid sitting behind (and to the left) of us seemed to have an attention deficit; he would periodically stamp on the floor or make plucking noises with his mouth. It wasn't loud enough to ruin the movie, but it did ruin my ability to concentrate in some spots.
(See also Orson Scott Card's review of the film. Alas, it seems as if the film didn't make much money, so they're unlikely to return to the story; I would love to see the same team tackle the Odyssey, especially given who they cast as Odysseus here ;-).
Saturday, June 12, 2004
India Garden (and India Palace)
Last night, we had to make a hurried trip to Indianapolis. But after that got settled, at least we got a chance to dine at India Garden.
Indianapolis has two excellent North Indian restaurants—India Palace and India Garden. I've eaten at India Palace several times; it's about 18 minutes away from the airport, so when I have to go to Indy to pick Thiagi up from the airport, I like to leave early and eat at India Palace and (when possible) get carry-out food for later meals for Julie and me. India Palace is my favorite Indian restaurant in Indiana, and perhaps anywhere.
My friend Simms had raved about India Garden and said it was “even better.” I had been very skeptical myself. But a while back, I had a chance to visit with my friends Martin and Laura and stay overnight with them. At the end of the visit, we all went to eat at India Garden, me for the first time. My conclusion: India Garden isn't better, but it's as good as India Palace, and different. I like India Palace's food a little better, but only a little, and I can easily understand preferring India Garden over India Palace.
Contact Info:
India Garden (downtown; there is another branch)
114 N Illinois St
Indianapolis, IN 46204
(317) 634-6060
India Palace
4213 Lafayette Rd
Indianapolis, IN 46254
(317) 298-0773
Both restaurants serve North Indian food. (South Indian food is vegetarian, and rice-heavy; North Indian food includes meat-based dishes [based on chicken or lamb, but not pork or beef] and is [wheat-based] bread-heavy.) Both have excellent entrees and desserts, and both have excellent all-you-can-eat lunch buffets for under $7/person.
Indianapolis has two excellent North Indian restaurants—India Palace and India Garden. I've eaten at India Palace several times; it's about 18 minutes away from the airport, so when I have to go to Indy to pick Thiagi up from the airport, I like to leave early and eat at India Palace and (when possible) get carry-out food for later meals for Julie and me. India Palace is my favorite Indian restaurant in Indiana, and perhaps anywhere.
My friend Simms had raved about India Garden and said it was “even better.” I had been very skeptical myself. But a while back, I had a chance to visit with my friends Martin and Laura and stay overnight with them. At the end of the visit, we all went to eat at India Garden, me for the first time. My conclusion: India Garden isn't better, but it's as good as India Palace, and different. I like India Palace's food a little better, but only a little, and I can easily understand preferring India Garden over India Palace.
Contact Info:
India Garden (downtown; there is another branch)
114 N Illinois St
Indianapolis, IN 46204
(317) 634-6060
India Palace
4213 Lafayette Rd
Indianapolis, IN 46254
(317) 298-0773
Both restaurants serve North Indian food. (South Indian food is vegetarian, and rice-heavy; North Indian food includes meat-based dishes [based on chicken or lamb, but not pork or beef] and is [wheat-based] bread-heavy.) Both have excellent entrees and desserts, and both have excellent all-you-can-eat lunch buffets for under $7/person.
Friday, June 11, 2004
E Is for Extinction
This morning I reread E Is for Extinction, the trade paperback collecting the first 4 (gosh, is it only four?) issues of (writer) Grant Morrison's run on New X-Men (or New X-meN to follow the logo ;-). I didn't quite enjoy it as much as the first time I read it; at the time, I found it a comfort while recuperating from some surgery. But now, while the art is still incredible, that's sort of expected in “Big Two” comics these days. (All praise computer coloring and lettering ;-). What's still brilliant, though, is the Morrison Manifesto, dated 20 October 2000, that Morrison sent to the Marvel editors, arguing for a more modern and streamlined take on the characters, (in some ways) following the lead of Bryan Singer's X-Men movie. Morrison is writing directly for me: Though I'm a long-time comics reader, I was never that interested in the goofy costumes, hundreds of characters, and convoluted continuity older than me that I associate with the X-Men comics; so streamlining that was a bold move, and I think the right move.
Thursday, June 10, 2004
Reviews of Buffy 6's "Flooded" and Angel 3's "Couplet"
Ok, let me see how far I get without revealing any spoilers….
“Flooded” is the third episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer Season Six (assuming you count the two-part season premiere as one), and it was the first episode we didn't really like this season. Appropriately for an episode whose central image is of a flooded basement, this seemed to tread water and look ugly while doing so. The only good parts were two scenes: An angry argument between X and Y (to pick two random variable names), and a bittersweet scene between the title character and her unrequieted love—which made me marvel, yet again, what a terrific actor they have in the role of her unrequieted love. Weak as the episode is, it's still Buffy, which makes it better than almost anything else. 6 out of 10.
“Couplet” (Angel 3.14) was much better; while it wasn't exactly a great episode for all time, it had some very funny bits. The female lead wants to get together with an ex-love but is concerned about mystical side-effects. An “office romance” continues to build, with the persons involved looking very cute—which of course makes me fear for ugly consequences later. And the episode closes with a disturbing translation whose discoverer keeps it secret. Again, not an episode for the ages, but a fun one that feels like it's advancing important arcs. 8 out of 10.
“Flooded” is the third episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer Season Six (assuming you count the two-part season premiere as one), and it was the first episode we didn't really like this season. Appropriately for an episode whose central image is of a flooded basement, this seemed to tread water and look ugly while doing so. The only good parts were two scenes: An angry argument between X and Y (to pick two random variable names), and a bittersweet scene between the title character and her unrequieted love—which made me marvel, yet again, what a terrific actor they have in the role of her unrequieted love. Weak as the episode is, it's still Buffy, which makes it better than almost anything else. 6 out of 10.
“Couplet” (Angel 3.14) was much better; while it wasn't exactly a great episode for all time, it had some very funny bits. The female lead wants to get together with an ex-love but is concerned about mystical side-effects. An “office romance” continues to build, with the persons involved looking very cute—which of course makes me fear for ugly consequences later. And the episode closes with a disturbing translation whose discoverer keeps it secret. Again, not an episode for the ages, but a fun one that feels like it's advancing important arcs. 8 out of 10.
Wednesday, June 09, 2004
Into the Jaws
An explanation of exactly how a great white shark bites, with good illustrations. This is aimed at kids so it's not too scary.
An Introduction
I guess I should introduce this page. My friend Ignacio has had a blog here for some time ( http://ignacioviglizzo.blogspot.com/ ) and he just turned on a feature to allow comments. I decided to try it out, and it looked like I'd have to create an account to post non-anonymous comments. Since I'd been mildly interested, I figured I might as well sign up.
Currently reading: Astronauts in Trouble (hardcover collection of three short b&w independent comics titles), Metaplanetary. Currently watching: Tomorrowland (Walt Disney Treasures DVD), Buffy the Vampire Slayer Season 6 DVD, 24 Season 3, The Elegant Universe DVD, Angel Season 3 DVD, Homicide Season 3 DVD.
