So, like, last night I read this article ("Why Men Can't and Shouldn't Stop Staring at Women") so that I could read this response to it that showed up on my tumblr dashboard. I encourage you to read both, but basically the original article talks about how ladies are hot and it's natural for straight dudes to want to look at them, especially when they're out there on the street wearing such revealing clothes! And then the response says how actually ladies are people and don't just exist to be looked at.
And while, yes, I have issues with the article that mostly amount to what the response brings up (not quite, though, we discussed some of my thoughts on clothing here a long time ago), I also have this issue, which is that I am constantly checking out dudes. I know that this is supposedly different, because society, but when I'm doing a double take at some hottie on the street, it's not because I'm thinking, "Oh dearie me, what a manly man who is probably good at his job and intelligent and caring and also has issues and desires and agency separate from mine, all of which I am cognizant and respectful of because he is a human being!" What I'm thinking is more along the lines of, "Hot damn, that dude is attractive enough to bone."
Am I the only lady lech out there? Can we not agree that it's possible to compartmentalize the objectification of people you glance at and then never see again from the way that we treat/think of people who we actually know or at least interact with in a meaningful way?
Could I possibly just be a complete jackass?! If so, please explain where I'm going wrong on this! Seriously!
R24. World War Z by Max Brooks
My apologies about the lack of a post last week, everyone. This week you'll get two if I remember to do the Current Distractions post on Saturday, and I'm actually starting to feel like I might want to pick up a novel again soon (I read this one before That Which Will Not Be Named), so there's that. -M.R.
Year Published: 2006
Pages: 420
First Sentence: It goes by many names: "The Crisis," "The Dark Years," "The Walking Plague," as well as newer and more "hip" titles such as "World War Z" or "Z War One."
Review:
I have to begin by saying that I really don't get it when it comes to zombies. I thought Night of the Living Dead was alright, and 28 Days Later was scary (but doesn't seem like a straightforward zombie movie to me in the first place). I loved Fido (a Canadian film!, which I didn't realize at time of watching), and I need to give Shaun of the Dead a rewatch. But besides The White Zombie and the Resident Evil movies, those are literally the only zombie-related things that I've seen. I just don't find traditional zombies all that scary or interesting, although I can kind of appreciate why other people do.
So I'm not exactly the ideal audience for World War Z by Max Brooks. I'd heard really good things about the book from people whose taste I tend to trust, though, and so I really wanted to give it a try.
To my dismay, but also unsurprisingly, I thought the book was just ok.
The book is subtitled "An Oral History of the Zombie War." It's a compilation of interviews with various survivors of a near-future zombie apocalypse. The outbreak of the mysterious zombie virus-thing begins in China and spreads rapidly all over the globe. I won't get into what each country ends up doing in response to this (the scariest aspects of the book come from the necessary-but-abhorrent measures that are resorted to in order to "win" the Zombie War), and there aren't really any main characters or story arcs, but basically the interviews come from people all over the world: soldiers, human traffickers, doctors, government officials, and a handful of just normal people.
My biggest issue with the book was just my personal indifference to the subject matter. The first part of The Stand gave me nightmares, but I read World War Z with a sort of cold detachment. I do have some other, content-based objections to it, though. For one thing, my edition was plagued (GET IT!?) with typographical errors, some of which looked suspiciously like straight up editing errors.
Max Brooks is a good writer, but not a great one, and his international cast suffers because of it. I've mentioned the subtle foreign language cues in The Old Wives' Tale, Lord Jim, and Kim previously, and World War Z is completely devoid of these, to its detriment. Brooks' characters all speak (or are "translated") as native English speakers, and this reduces the feel of the scope of the novel considerably. Brooks just doesn't have the skill to give each character a unique and distinct voice. (To which I'd like to add that I think something like this would be much easier to do as a multi-author project, à la compilations like War of the Worlds: Global Dispatches and Machine of Death [which itself suffers from a lack of cohesiveness due to {parentheses!} a not-well-enough-defined premise].)
The scope of the book also doesn't overcome the writer's American bias, and I don't mean this in a "boo hoo, but what about the Canadians?!" sort of way. Brooks has many non-American settings, but probably half of them are occupied by American exiles of various stripes. And I can't think of a single female authority figure who was interviewed, which was disappointing. Even the civilian interviews are heavily skewed toward the male perspective. These aren't enormous problems, but in a novel that purports to be excerpted from an enormous and comprehensive body of content, stuff like this does nothing to support the realistic tone that Brooks was obviously going for.
Anyway, I'm talking about this like it was the worst reading experience of my life or something. It certainly wasn't that, it's just that the book has a few really obvious problems. It's fun and engaging, though, with a good amount of variety in the subject matter of the stories it tells, if not the voices of the people telling them. If you like zombies, you'll probably love it.
Quotations:
none :(
Year Published: 2006
Pages: 420
First Sentence: It goes by many names: "The Crisis," "The Dark Years," "The Walking Plague," as well as newer and more "hip" titles such as "World War Z" or "Z War One."
Review:
I have to begin by saying that I really don't get it when it comes to zombies. I thought Night of the Living Dead was alright, and 28 Days Later was scary (but doesn't seem like a straightforward zombie movie to me in the first place). I loved Fido (a Canadian film!, which I didn't realize at time of watching), and I need to give Shaun of the Dead a rewatch. But besides The White Zombie and the Resident Evil movies, those are literally the only zombie-related things that I've seen. I just don't find traditional zombies all that scary or interesting, although I can kind of appreciate why other people do.
So I'm not exactly the ideal audience for World War Z by Max Brooks. I'd heard really good things about the book from people whose taste I tend to trust, though, and so I really wanted to give it a try.
To my dismay, but also unsurprisingly, I thought the book was just ok.
The book is subtitled "An Oral History of the Zombie War." It's a compilation of interviews with various survivors of a near-future zombie apocalypse. The outbreak of the mysterious zombie virus-thing begins in China and spreads rapidly all over the globe. I won't get into what each country ends up doing in response to this (the scariest aspects of the book come from the necessary-but-abhorrent measures that are resorted to in order to "win" the Zombie War), and there aren't really any main characters or story arcs, but basically the interviews come from people all over the world: soldiers, human traffickers, doctors, government officials, and a handful of just normal people.
My biggest issue with the book was just my personal indifference to the subject matter. The first part of The Stand gave me nightmares, but I read World War Z with a sort of cold detachment. I do have some other, content-based objections to it, though. For one thing, my edition was plagued (GET IT!?) with typographical errors, some of which looked suspiciously like straight up editing errors.
Max Brooks is a good writer, but not a great one, and his international cast suffers because of it. I've mentioned the subtle foreign language cues in The Old Wives' Tale, Lord Jim, and Kim previously, and World War Z is completely devoid of these, to its detriment. Brooks' characters all speak (or are "translated") as native English speakers, and this reduces the feel of the scope of the novel considerably. Brooks just doesn't have the skill to give each character a unique and distinct voice. (To which I'd like to add that I think something like this would be much easier to do as a multi-author project, à la compilations like War of the Worlds: Global Dispatches and Machine of Death [which itself suffers from a lack of cohesiveness due to {parentheses!} a not-well-enough-defined premise].)
The scope of the book also doesn't overcome the writer's American bias, and I don't mean this in a "boo hoo, but what about the Canadians?!" sort of way. Brooks has many non-American settings, but probably half of them are occupied by American exiles of various stripes. And I can't think of a single female authority figure who was interviewed, which was disappointing. Even the civilian interviews are heavily skewed toward the male perspective. These aren't enormous problems, but in a novel that purports to be excerpted from an enormous and comprehensive body of content, stuff like this does nothing to support the realistic tone that Brooks was obviously going for.
Anyway, I'm talking about this like it was the worst reading experience of my life or something. It certainly wasn't that, it's just that the book has a few really obvious problems. It's fun and engaging, though, with a good amount of variety in the subject matter of the stories it tells, if not the voices of the people telling them. If you like zombies, you'll probably love it.
Quotations:
none :(
Finnegans Wake: The Audiobook
So, as I mentioned in my Finnegans Wake review, I actually read/listened to/absorbed most of the book through an audiobook.
As it turns out, I was extremely fortunate to find that audiobook when I did, because just now when I went to find it again, I discovered that it's since been removed from that website (UbuWeb seems to be some kind of unlicensed content stockpile that looks super legit but isn't actually).
Anyway, the whole point of this post is that while I was looking for the audiobook, I found a blog post by some other poor sucker about how terrible it was. (From what I can tell, the Patrick Healey edition that I and this random blogger are talking about seems to be the only unabridged audiobook of Finnegans Wake in existence. And maybe you can buy it here for a hysterical sum of money?)
Random Blogger brings up a couple of points that I wanted to address, in case you happen to want to seek out this audiobook for some insane reason, mainly because I had the actual paper book handy while I was listening to the audiobook, and I think that gave me a slightly different perspective from Random Blogger's.
This is absolutely true. As much as I hated every second of Finnegans Wake, read or listened to, and wanted it to be over as soon as possible, it's pretty clear to me that the book requires a slow and careful reading if you're going to get anything out of it at all, and each syllable needs careful enunciation. Whenever I picked up the paper version of the book to glance at while I listened to the audiobook, I was always dismayed to note that Healey was actually skipping syllables in his rush.
Although I think there are a few places in the recording where this happens and it's a real mistake, actually a lot of the stuttering and repetition is within the text itself. Healey does really trip up on some words, though, and it's kind of infuriating: if he's going to insist on this kind of frenetic reading pace, he should be able to maintain it.
I disagree with this, but this is where my inexperience with audiobooks will show most. I thought that tone variations were pretty good considering the horrors of the material being read and, of course, the inexplicable speed of the reading.
To sum up: I feel like I need to state again that you should just never ever go anywhere near this book, in any form, if you don't have to, whatever I or anyone else may say about the quality of the recording of it. And that's pretty much it for this one.
As it turns out, I was extremely fortunate to find that audiobook when I did, because just now when I went to find it again, I discovered that it's since been removed from that website (UbuWeb seems to be some kind of unlicensed content stockpile that looks super legit but isn't actually).
Anyway, the whole point of this post is that while I was looking for the audiobook, I found a blog post by some other poor sucker about how terrible it was. (From what I can tell, the Patrick Healey edition that I and this random blogger are talking about seems to be the only unabridged audiobook of Finnegans Wake in existence. And maybe you can buy it here for a hysterical sum of money?)
Random Blogger brings up a couple of points that I wanted to address, in case you happen to want to seek out this audiobook for some insane reason, mainly because I had the actual paper book handy while I was listening to the audiobook, and I think that gave me a slightly different perspective from Random Blogger's.
Healey takes a book that needs, nay, DEMANDS a slow, careful reading, and speeds through it like he only has a day to finish.
This is absolutely true. As much as I hated every second of Finnegans Wake, read or listened to, and wanted it to be over as soon as possible, it's pretty clear to me that the book requires a slow and careful reading if you're going to get anything out of it at all, and each syllable needs careful enunciation. Whenever I picked up the paper version of the book to glance at while I listened to the audiobook, I was always dismayed to note that Healey was actually skipping syllables in his rush.
[H]e frequently stutters, trips up on words, and has to start over.
Although I think there are a few places in the recording where this happens and it's a real mistake, actually a lot of the stuttering and repetition is within the text itself. Healey does really trip up on some words, though, and it's kind of infuriating: if he's going to insist on this kind of frenetic reading pace, he should be able to maintain it.
Finally, he reads every goddamn sentence with nary a change in tone, and when he does change his tone, its into some mumbling, slow bullshit...
I disagree with this, but this is where my inexperience with audiobooks will show most. I thought that tone variations were pretty good considering the horrors of the material being read and, of course, the inexplicable speed of the reading.
To sum up: I feel like I need to state again that you should just never ever go anywhere near this book, in any form, if you don't have to, whatever I or anyone else may say about the quality of the recording of it. And that's pretty much it for this one.
Board Members: A. S. Byatt
As noted with the previous bio, this is by no means a comprehensive summary. Also I should note that with some of the broad descriptors I’ve chosen, I’m making best guesses as to where the board members fall i.e. I can’t say for sure what anyone’s sexual orientation/religion/sex is if that information isn’t readily available. (And I mean very readily, because I’m lazy.)
Name: A. S. Byatt (Dame Antonia Susan Duffy)
Born: August 24, 1936
Died: Still alive!
Country of Origin/Main Residence: England
Sex: Female
Sexual Orientation: Hetero
Married?: Yes: Charles Rayner Byatt, 1959 (dissolved in 1969); Peter John Duffy, 1969
Children?: Yes: 4
Education: Literature
Religion: none
Literary Awards: Booker Prize for Possession: A Romance
Life:
A. S. Byatt was born in Sheffield, England to John Drabble and Kathleen Bloor. She went to Sheffield High School and the Quaker Mount School, then Cambridge, Bryn Mawr, and Oxford. She lectured for several years at London University and University College London.
Byatt seems to be mostly a writer, though, having written everything from fiction to poetry to critical studies and essays (with an output in the >20 range). Her pet themes appear to be naturalism, realism, and the places where fantasy intersects with the real world, and I think I’d definitely be game to pick up at least a couple of her novels.
Wikipedia quotes her as having said that she’s anti-Christian and doesn’t believe that human beings are basically good, which makes me think that she’s probably awesomely sassy, however she’s also in some sort of feud with her sister, writer Margaret Drabble, over a tea set, which is ridiculous.
Byatt had a daughter and son with her first husband (her son died in a car accident when he was 11), and two daughters with her second husband.
Sources: her website and obviously wikipedia
 |
| from http://www.abolitionist.com/ |
Name: A. S. Byatt (Dame Antonia Susan Duffy)
Born: August 24, 1936
Died: Still alive!
Country of Origin/Main Residence: England
Sex: Female
Sexual Orientation: Hetero
Married?: Yes: Charles Rayner Byatt, 1959 (dissolved in 1969); Peter John Duffy, 1969
Children?: Yes: 4
Education: Literature
Religion: none
Literary Awards: Booker Prize for Possession: A Romance
Life:
A. S. Byatt was born in Sheffield, England to John Drabble and Kathleen Bloor. She went to Sheffield High School and the Quaker Mount School, then Cambridge, Bryn Mawr, and Oxford. She lectured for several years at London University and University College London.
Byatt seems to be mostly a writer, though, having written everything from fiction to poetry to critical studies and essays (with an output in the >20 range). Her pet themes appear to be naturalism, realism, and the places where fantasy intersects with the real world, and I think I’d definitely be game to pick up at least a couple of her novels.
Wikipedia quotes her as having said that she’s anti-Christian and doesn’t believe that human beings are basically good, which makes me think that she’s probably awesomely sassy, however she’s also in some sort of feud with her sister, writer Margaret Drabble, over a tea set, which is ridiculous.
Byatt had a daughter and son with her first husband (her son died in a car accident when he was 11), and two daughters with her second husband.
Sources: her website and obviously wikipedia
Current Distractions, Slightly Belated February 2012 Edition
I was going to post this last night, but then got too distracted watching Carnivale. So, uh, that's one of my distractions for February. Also, The X-Files, because I'm predictable like that.
I'm reading Future Shock, which was awesome at the beginning but has started to drag over the course of the last hundred pages or so, and reading my way through my bookshelf has gotten to be more of a priority now that I've bought a bunch of new books (oops). So really there might not be a new Top 100 review for a while (but I do have a Random one saved up from reading I did in January).
The main distraction I had in February, though, was being basically haunted by the movie Chronicle. I can't shut up about this movie and I've been trying to figure out how I might actually seduce its writer, Max Landis.
Other media consumption over the course of February that isn't directly usable for blogging purposes:
Pink Ribbons, Inc. - WATCH THIS MOVIE
Memories of the Future by Wil Wheaton - Don't be surprised if I start talking about Star Trek constantly as soon as I'm finished watching The X-Files
Minecraft - Finally started playing this with my brother and it's so much fun
Twisted Metal on PS3 - When my family finally upgraded from the Atari 2600 to a PlayStation in, I believe, 1998, the system came with either a sports game (lame) or Twisted Metal (not sure which incarnation), and my unsuspecting parents chose to go with Twisted Metal, which they later regretted when they found out that you could get bonuses for killing pedestrians. Anyway, this series has a special place in my heart, and my sister and I are something like a third of the way through it. (Don't play it alone because I think that would be really boring.)
I'm reading Future Shock, which was awesome at the beginning but has started to drag over the course of the last hundred pages or so, and reading my way through my bookshelf has gotten to be more of a priority now that I've bought a bunch of new books (oops). So really there might not be a new Top 100 review for a while (but I do have a Random one saved up from reading I did in January).
The main distraction I had in February, though, was being basically haunted by the movie Chronicle. I can't shut up about this movie and I've been trying to figure out how I might actually seduce its writer, Max Landis.
Other media consumption over the course of February that isn't directly usable for blogging purposes:
Pink Ribbons, Inc. - WATCH THIS MOVIE
Memories of the Future by Wil Wheaton - Don't be surprised if I start talking about Star Trek constantly as soon as I'm finished watching The X-Files
Minecraft - Finally started playing this with my brother and it's so much fun
Twisted Metal on PS3 - When my family finally upgraded from the Atari 2600 to a PlayStation in, I believe, 1998, the system came with either a sports game (lame) or Twisted Metal (not sure which incarnation), and my unsuspecting parents chose to go with Twisted Metal, which they later regretted when they found out that you could get bonuses for killing pedestrians. Anyway, this series has a special place in my heart, and my sister and I are something like a third of the way through it. (Don't play it alone because I think that would be really boring.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)