You are viewing the most recent 10 entries
17th August, 2009
19th July, 2009
Being somewhat trained in science I'm used to things I read having more than one author and to try to interpret who did what from how the names are listed on the paper.
However, I've noted that when it comes to fiction I have very few* books written by more than one person. But in the SF book lists I regularly see books written by more than one author, though I usually have very little interest in those books** (Baen seems to have a not-insignificant fraction of Author Co-Op's, but the covers are enough to scare me away from even looking at the blurbs). So here's my question. How much of the book if the book is "written" by More Famous Author and Less Famous Author is actually written by More Famous Author?
*I think I have one or two outside the classic Swedish Police Novel Author Pair, Sjöwall/Wahlöö, who wrote ten books about Stockholm and detective Martin Beck in the 1960's and early 70's. Later made into umpteen TV films.
**Another piece of the lists I don't seem to care much for is media tie-ins.
11th July, 2009
I've watched Transformers: Rise of the Fallen and man, was that a seriously clunky movie. Lots of robots, lots of crashing and exploding and generally quite dull and silly. How can you spend all that money and 2.5 hours of film time with so little to say? It's almost an achievement in itself.
20th June, 2009
7th May, 2009
In the world of TV the BBC has produced films about the detective Wallander, based upon the books by Swedish author Mankell. (I'm not a big fan). So what they do is take British actors with British accents, and a leading Kenneth Branagh, shoot the films in Sweden on location, with Swedish signs, names and newspapers... ...and, okay, to me it sounds a bit weird and closely related to those German films shot in Sweden with German actors playing Swedes named Inga. I wonder how the Brits prounounce Swedish names as a start. Like "Wallander".
There is a Swedish Wallander series too, of course.
27th April, 2009
I'm not exactly a sucker for classic education, but I do believe that there is a certain amount of Source Books one should read in one's life in order to be able to form an own opinion about what the world is like. Anyway, in order to be a bit more updated on the religious source material for the West I've started to go through Augustine's City of God and the Nag Hammadi Scriptures and another set of Lost Gospels, and it makes me wonder how many of those Christians who actually read material like this. (For one, it wasn't that simple to find the City of God in the city at all. Nag Hammadi ironically was simpler).
It is really weird. I mean, I can understand the Gnostics but I can't understand their alienation or their fascination with very strange and complex cosmologies. I guess it is the alienation bit, when good the gnostics are actually quite good but far too often it feels like the 2nd century version of Secret Loser Club Extraordinaire. I get the feeling that many of these people would be the same Smart-but-Stupid misfits today, desperately seeking their own little clique and their own little dreams of a Higher purpose and Chosenness, to be more than the Regular People around them in a world they do not belong in.
But if this world is the real one, isn't it the fantasy cosmology and false alienation of the gnostics which is the creation of a lesser god?
28th March, 2009
24th March, 2009
Your New-Caught Sullen Peoples, Half-devil And Half-child:
From james_nicoll's journal I note that the Libertarians are out finding targets for the Hall of Fame award.
This year, both Kipling and Tolkien are in. (It's the Libertarian Futurist Society, to be specific. Tolkien and Kipling!)
You vaguely feel libertarianism is a bit of a loser ideology when they have to resort to nominees like that. And that the future isn't what it used to be.