Introducing: Mrs Random Cheese
You can have lunch with three fictional characters - one from a book, one from a film or play, and one from a TV series. You can eat with them separately or together. Which will they be? Would you introduce them to one another, or to anyone you know? Why?
Beautiful question, my friend. If incredibly difficult.
I will say that my play character would be Barbara from Head Rot Holiday. Emotionally draining and soul-wrenching that the other characters are, Barbara is such a psychologically damaged woman that she should be in the hospital as a patient, not running it. So she would be fun(!)-or interesting to question and chat with. This has nothing to do with the fact that I played her, nopeddy nope. No...
Then I would question Bellatrix Lestrange. (Yes, another HP answer, I know) The woman is insane. (Clearly I like my characters a little bit warped.) Bearing in mind that I'm a muggle, so y'know, no love there, I'd love to ask why she has no conscience at all, and what she makes of Voldemort's heritage. Then I would send her to the Dementors (I'm sorry, I hate her, but it doesn't mean I can't question her)
Finally, I would lunch with Carla Espinosa, because I loves her! Not so deranged, but married to a man who is involved in an epic bromance (it must be like being Hermione), and also being a Latina nurse in a majority white hospital must be interesting. I might make a move on her while I'm there, cos she's hot. *shallow* Anyway, I know she's not a popular one, but I can't help but love her anyway.
I don't think I'd lunch them altogether! All incredibly different women with incredibly different backgrounds (and one who would happily commit genoicide against the rest of us and our ilk!) would clash, I think. Particularly that all three are incredibly strong female personalities; I just think there would be lots of shouting! :P
If you were given the option, what would you most enjoy never having to do again?
Job hunting! It is the most tedious, mind-numbing, SOUL DESTROYING thing, and if I could find a career that I loved in a place that I loved, I think I would just stay there forever. None of this CV and online application rubbish.
If you could have an exclusive interview with any two people (real, not fiction) - male or female - one currently living, and one dead who would they be? Why would you want to talk to them? What would you ask them?
I would love to talk to Richard III. I want to ask him how he feels about his reputation being particularly mangled by our chum Shakespeare; also I'm dying to know whether he was responsible for the murder of the Princes in the Tower. I just HAVE to know, OK? If I got the chance, I would definitely take the opportunity to find out for'reals. (and he would just tell me the truth, it's part of the deal) Then I'd probably give him a chance to clear his name if he could.
One living person: it has to be JK Rowling, no? I am in awe of this woman-how far she has come from where she was and her doing great things for ginger people everywhere. I also want to know whether Professor Wiseman is in fact Dumbledore. Again, it's something I just HAVE to know. And then we could bond over our mutual love for the classical age. And then she would invite me to her Scottish mansion and we would live happily ever after, the end.
You’re stuck in a room for a year and you can only have access to three movies. What movies do you pick?
Hardcore. I don't have particular favourites, apart from my old friend Disney. So I would probably save The Little Mermaid (greatest film in the history of ever) because that film has just become a part of me, almost. I couldn't imagine not being able to watch it when I want to-the very idea of it makes me sadface :-(
The Muppets Christmas Carol: again, a massive part of my childhood. Also, the Muppets are love. It's important that I can watch something that will make me laugh-because I cannot cry for an entire year. It would destroy me. For me, you can't get any better than the Muppets.
The Life of Brian. Because he's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy.
08 October 2010
07 October 2010
Introducing: Wordwrestler
Wordwrestler is a writer and a public servant.
You can have lunch with three fictional characters - one from a book, one from a film or play, and one from a TV series. You can eat with them separately or together. Which will they be? Would you introduce them to one another, or to anyone you know? Why?
Three incarnations of Sherlock Holmes walk in, one walks out. Doyle's version from the page (pre-Reichenbach Falls), Nick Meyer's and Nicol Williamson's version as seen in The Seven Per Cent Solution, and Dr. Gregory House. Because I have no idea which would win, but I know it would be amazing to watch.
======================================================
If you could have an exclusive interview with any two people (real, not fiction) - male or female - one currently living, and one dead who would they be? Why would you want to talk to them? What would you ask them?
I'd like Sarah Palin and Andrew Jackson to sit on the interviewing couch together. I think they have a lot in common, so much so that they would fall in love, Jackson would take her back to the 1800s with him, and they'd end up swirling down the drain of mutually destructive passion instead of going into politics. Of course, this creates one of those paradoxes that make time travel so tricky, because if not for Andrew Jackson, Sarah Palin could never have existed. But even in fantasy, nothing is ever perfect.
======================================================
You're stuck in a room for a year and you can only have access to three movies. What movies do you pick?
Desk Set, The Age of Innocence, and The Apartment.
Desk Set is by no means the strongest Tracy/Hepburn film--it's one of those movies where you think more about how much fun the cast must have had making it than about the story--but it is my favorite, and not just because Bunny Watson is a kick-ass librarian. In this movie, more than in any of their others, Tracy's and Hepburn's characters meet as equals from the start. Sure, she has a fatal flaw in the shape of a 7-year dead-end relationship, but neither the audience nor Hepburn seem to really believe in it. We all know she's better than that. And so does Tracy, but he doesn't go through any strange "romantic" machinations to get her to come to her senses. He just wants to know more about this person. At one moment, he tells her, "I bet you write wonderful letters," and in that moment, it is a declaration of love clearer than any other. So, yeah. I'm a sap for that movie.
The Apartment, on the other hand, is a What Not to Do template for relationships. While Wilder and Diamond give the script a "happy" ending, so many problems cluster around the borders of the frame that the new couple seems doomed from the start. Just because you mutually reject suicide, adultery, and corporate corruption doesn't mean you'll be good together. The Apartment is also comforting because it is very much a movie of its time. I doubt it could ever be remade, and certainly not as a comedy.
And finally we come to The Age of Innocence, which I chose because no-one said anything about being able to take books into this room. It's based on one of my favorites, a book I can read any time, in any mood, and still love. The film's got some flaws, but it is completely faithful to the satirical spirit of the book. Plus, Daniel Day-Lewis. I could seriously stare at that man for a year and a day and not get bored. I'm not made of wood, people. You need to know that going in. I am not made of wood.
======================================================
If there were a mass book burning, and you had the choice to save three books for your own public consumption, and three books to destroy so that no one could read them ever again, which would they be?
I would not have time to save or destroy any books. I would be too busy organizing the bucket brigade.
You can have lunch with three fictional characters - one from a book, one from a film or play, and one from a TV series. You can eat with them separately or together. Which will they be? Would you introduce them to one another, or to anyone you know? Why?
Three incarnations of Sherlock Holmes walk in, one walks out. Doyle's version from the page (pre-Reichenbach Falls), Nick Meyer's and Nicol Williamson's version as seen in The Seven Per Cent Solution, and Dr. Gregory House. Because I have no idea which would win, but I know it would be amazing to watch.
======================================================
If you could have an exclusive interview with any two people (real, not fiction) - male or female - one currently living, and one dead who would they be? Why would you want to talk to them? What would you ask them?
I'd like Sarah Palin and Andrew Jackson to sit on the interviewing couch together. I think they have a lot in common, so much so that they would fall in love, Jackson would take her back to the 1800s with him, and they'd end up swirling down the drain of mutually destructive passion instead of going into politics. Of course, this creates one of those paradoxes that make time travel so tricky, because if not for Andrew Jackson, Sarah Palin could never have existed. But even in fantasy, nothing is ever perfect.
======================================================
You're stuck in a room for a year and you can only have access to three movies. What movies do you pick?
Desk Set, The Age of Innocence, and The Apartment.
Desk Set is by no means the strongest Tracy/Hepburn film--it's one of those movies where you think more about how much fun the cast must have had making it than about the story--but it is my favorite, and not just because Bunny Watson is a kick-ass librarian. In this movie, more than in any of their others, Tracy's and Hepburn's characters meet as equals from the start. Sure, she has a fatal flaw in the shape of a 7-year dead-end relationship, but neither the audience nor Hepburn seem to really believe in it. We all know she's better than that. And so does Tracy, but he doesn't go through any strange "romantic" machinations to get her to come to her senses. He just wants to know more about this person. At one moment, he tells her, "I bet you write wonderful letters," and in that moment, it is a declaration of love clearer than any other. So, yeah. I'm a sap for that movie.
The Apartment, on the other hand, is a What Not to Do template for relationships. While Wilder and Diamond give the script a "happy" ending, so many problems cluster around the borders of the frame that the new couple seems doomed from the start. Just because you mutually reject suicide, adultery, and corporate corruption doesn't mean you'll be good together. The Apartment is also comforting because it is very much a movie of its time. I doubt it could ever be remade, and certainly not as a comedy.
And finally we come to The Age of Innocence, which I chose because no-one said anything about being able to take books into this room. It's based on one of my favorites, a book I can read any time, in any mood, and still love. The film's got some flaws, but it is completely faithful to the satirical spirit of the book. Plus, Daniel Day-Lewis. I could seriously stare at that man for a year and a day and not get bored. I'm not made of wood, people. You need to know that going in. I am not made of wood.
======================================================
If there were a mass book burning, and you had the choice to save three books for your own public consumption, and three books to destroy so that no one could read them ever again, which would they be?
I would not have time to save or destroy any books. I would be too busy organizing the bucket brigade.
Introducing: Fish ... For reals this time
Fish is apologetic for being late with the intro post, but supposes it's just college days coming back to her: "what? you mean, I can't post this late and still get an A?"
If there were a mass book burning, and you had the choice to save three books for your own public consumption, and three books to destroy so that no one could read them ever again, which would they be?
For my three to burn, I decided to pick the least important, least memorable books I could think of (for both the authors and the audience). That I generally had no affection for, of course.
Night Shift by Nora Roberts. She has tons of books, I’m sure this one isn’t even her best work by a long shot. I read it for class (no, really) and it was pretty boring. I couldn’t even remember the name of it, I had to google-fu a bit to get it. It had sex in it, which is always a plus, but it was pretty purple prose-y, which is a minus. but, then again, it’s genre fiction, so there ya go.
Of course, looking within the parameters of “large body of work” and “low quality” I HAD to go with the Boxcar Children. I read maybe four of the Boxcar Children books when I was young, and after about the third one you realize that everything is kind of sexist and it’s not actually that interesting.
I took a look at Wikipedia, and there’s 125 books it that series. WHAT? oh god, why? it’s the same fucking mystery over and over. I seriously doubt anything actually interesting happens. I looked over the master list and I picked #120 “The Vampire Mystery” because it’s later in the series, so probably nothing happens that’s important - like that later books need to refer back to. It has a boring name and a stupid scooby-doo plot description. And even if some young kid completely fell in love with this series, they would probably grow out of it before book #120, so really no one would miss it.
And for the third I’m just going to go with oh, I don’t know, how about “Going Rogue” by Sarah Palin. Simply because ‘shut up Sarah Palin’
Books to keep:
From the Mixed-Up files of Mrs. Basil E. Frankweiler by E.L. Koingsberg. And not just because it’s the funnest title to type up. Poignant middle grade novel. One that I’ve re-read a few times and just kind of love.
Summon The Keeper By Tanya Huff - my “trashy” comfort novel. Long and plot heavy enough to sustain multiple readings, also funny as hell.
Writing Down the Bones by Natalie Goldberg. Because us writers do need us our writin’ books.
You can have lunch with three fictional characters - one from a book, one from a film or play, and one from a TV series. You can eat with them separately or together. Which will they be? Would you introduce them to one another, or to anyone you know? Why?
TV series character would be Dan from Sports Night. Because he’d be witty and funny (Oh Aaron Sorkin, your writing is so sharp) but I think he also can be really honest and deep and we’d be able to find something to talk about. Also, he’s cute. that’s always a bonus. I think I’d just like to have a casual lunch with just the two of us. Just because I could probably get a good banter with him going, and banter is sometimes best left to two people.
Book character I would have to go with … see, the problem with book character is that a lot of the books I read have teens as protagonists, and while I love reading about that age group, I don’t really feel like hanging out with that age group. So I’m picking Winnie the Pooh. Just because the book ‘the Tao of Pooh’ has me thinking that hanging out with Winnie would be more zen or enlightening than hanging out with an ordinary childish creature (like a child). I’d probably want lunch with a large group with Winnie - one on one might get old or boring after awhile.
And for some reason the Film/Play character ... nothing is coming to mind. Doh!
If you were given the option, what would you most enjoy never having to do again?
I’d love to never have to fill out government paperwork ever again. Ever. Taxes, permanent residency forms, passport applications, student loan paperwork, applications to jobs, schools, countries, etc - i really hate paperwork. I’m always so anxious about whether a typo is going to get the FBI on my tail. I worry about ‘what if I accidentally write false information and then the application is rejected and then the friendly canadian government comes after me and then I DIE?’
It’s a crazy fear, but it’s that combined with the tediousness and overall NONSENSICALNESS of paperwork that just drives me bananas.
If you could have an exclusive interview with any two people (real, not fiction) - male or female - one currently living, and one dead who would they be? Why would you want to talk to them? What would you ask them?
Living: Patrick Stewart - just because that’s the way I fangirl. I would pay to hear him read a stop sign. His past seems interesting, and he’s awesome, and he works within an industry (theatre, story-telling, etc) that I would like talking about.
Dead: Jim Henson - He’s left a legacy in a field I’m interested in (entertainment and education for young people) and I would want to talk to him and see how he saw the world. I would want him to bring kermit too.
I’m not really sure what I would actually ask them - i would mostly just want to listen to whatever they felt like saying. I would ask them to talk about what they were passionate about and why. I would ask them to tell me about their past and how they think it affected their present.
If there were a mass book burning, and you had the choice to save three books for your own public consumption, and three books to destroy so that no one could read them ever again, which would they be?
For my three to burn, I decided to pick the least important, least memorable books I could think of (for both the authors and the audience). That I generally had no affection for, of course.
Night Shift by Nora Roberts. She has tons of books, I’m sure this one isn’t even her best work by a long shot. I read it for class (no, really) and it was pretty boring. I couldn’t even remember the name of it, I had to google-fu a bit to get it. It had sex in it, which is always a plus, but it was pretty purple prose-y, which is a minus. but, then again, it’s genre fiction, so there ya go.
Of course, looking within the parameters of “large body of work” and “low quality” I HAD to go with the Boxcar Children. I read maybe four of the Boxcar Children books when I was young, and after about the third one you realize that everything is kind of sexist and it’s not actually that interesting.
I took a look at Wikipedia, and there’s 125 books it that series. WHAT? oh god, why? it’s the same fucking mystery over and over. I seriously doubt anything actually interesting happens. I looked over the master list and I picked #120 “The Vampire Mystery” because it’s later in the series, so probably nothing happens that’s important - like that later books need to refer back to. It has a boring name and a stupid scooby-doo plot description. And even if some young kid completely fell in love with this series, they would probably grow out of it before book #120, so really no one would miss it.
And for the third I’m just going to go with oh, I don’t know, how about “Going Rogue” by Sarah Palin. Simply because ‘shut up Sarah Palin’
Books to keep:
From the Mixed-Up files of Mrs. Basil E. Frankweiler by E.L. Koingsberg. And not just because it’s the funnest title to type up. Poignant middle grade novel. One that I’ve re-read a few times and just kind of love.
Summon The Keeper By Tanya Huff - my “trashy” comfort novel. Long and plot heavy enough to sustain multiple readings, also funny as hell.
Writing Down the Bones by Natalie Goldberg. Because us writers do need us our writin’ books.
You can have lunch with three fictional characters - one from a book, one from a film or play, and one from a TV series. You can eat with them separately or together. Which will they be? Would you introduce them to one another, or to anyone you know? Why?
TV series character would be Dan from Sports Night. Because he’d be witty and funny (Oh Aaron Sorkin, your writing is so sharp) but I think he also can be really honest and deep and we’d be able to find something to talk about. Also, he’s cute. that’s always a bonus. I think I’d just like to have a casual lunch with just the two of us. Just because I could probably get a good banter with him going, and banter is sometimes best left to two people.
Book character I would have to go with … see, the problem with book character is that a lot of the books I read have teens as protagonists, and while I love reading about that age group, I don’t really feel like hanging out with that age group. So I’m picking Winnie the Pooh. Just because the book ‘the Tao of Pooh’ has me thinking that hanging out with Winnie would be more zen or enlightening than hanging out with an ordinary childish creature (like a child). I’d probably want lunch with a large group with Winnie - one on one might get old or boring after awhile.
And for some reason the Film/Play character ... nothing is coming to mind. Doh!
If you were given the option, what would you most enjoy never having to do again?
I’d love to never have to fill out government paperwork ever again. Ever. Taxes, permanent residency forms, passport applications, student loan paperwork, applications to jobs, schools, countries, etc - i really hate paperwork. I’m always so anxious about whether a typo is going to get the FBI on my tail. I worry about ‘what if I accidentally write false information and then the application is rejected and then the friendly canadian government comes after me and then I DIE?’
It’s a crazy fear, but it’s that combined with the tediousness and overall NONSENSICALNESS of paperwork that just drives me bananas.
If you could have an exclusive interview with any two people (real, not fiction) - male or female - one currently living, and one dead who would they be? Why would you want to talk to them? What would you ask them?
Living: Patrick Stewart - just because that’s the way I fangirl. I would pay to hear him read a stop sign. His past seems interesting, and he’s awesome, and he works within an industry (theatre, story-telling, etc) that I would like talking about.
Dead: Jim Henson - He’s left a legacy in a field I’m interested in (entertainment and education for young people) and I would want to talk to him and see how he saw the world. I would want him to bring kermit too.
I’m not really sure what I would actually ask them - i would mostly just want to listen to whatever they felt like saying. I would ask them to talk about what they were passionate about and why. I would ask them to tell me about their past and how they think it affected their present.
06 October 2010
Introducing: Fish .... Kinda
Fish is a well intentioned 20-something who is late with her post. It will be up before she goes to bed tonight. No, really.
"But fish, you had LOTS of advance notice this was happening, so what's with the late?"
"well, you see- OH MY GOD, LOOK! DANCING GERMANS!"
Fun Fact: the guy in blue keeps forgetting his choreography.
"But fish, you had LOTS of advance notice this was happening, so what's with the late?"
"well, you see- OH MY GOD, LOOK! DANCING GERMANS!"
Fun Fact: the guy in blue keeps forgetting his choreography.
05 October 2010
Introducing: Miss Mermaid
Miss Mermaid is a first time blogger, who decided to join this group because a) she feels that there is always more room for discussion and b) she always claims she’ll try anything once with the exception of heroin, incest or the British National Party. She’s English (to the bone, no matter how hard she tries) and tends to wander around in a default setting of ‘not quite with it’. Let’s see how it goes!
You’re stuck in a room for a year and you can only have access to three movies. What movies do you pick?
Easy: Gone With the Wind – not only is it a beautiful, ridiculous tear-jerker, it’s also four hours long and you feel like you can’t bring yourself to watch anything for at least two weeks afterwards. The Muppet’s
If there were a mass book burning, and you had the choice to save three books for your own public consumption, and three books to destroy so that no one could read them ever again, which would they be?
SAVE: I’ve surprised myself by having to say first The Bible. I hasten to add that it would NOT be the King James version, being a source of far more bigotry than good (however poetic), but probably the New International Version were I forced to choose one single version for posterity. I think the choice comes mostly from my faith, but also from a sheer love of literature. It forms the foundation for so much western literature, either as stimulation, a reference point or something to react against – and whatever our views on faith we can’t escape that. Also, working my way through it (resurrecting a teenage project to actually read it from cover to cover) I have to say it’s a cracking read! Secondly, as I think I’d be breaking the rules saving the complete Sandman series, I think it would have to be Neil Gaiman’s complete short stories. Although, I don’t think that exists yet, so I’d have to opt for Smoke and Mirrors. His imagination both in content and in use of language never fails to amaze me. Finally (realising I’ve gotten a little heavy/pretentious in my choices) it would have to be The Time Traveller’s Wife by Audrey Niffenegger. It’s my ‘emotional crisis’ book. Pure romance and escapism, it makes me laugh and cry and I just love it.
BURN: I’m going to be predictable here and opt for The Twilight Saga. I know that it might be cheating counting them as one, but I can’t stand them. I think they’re abhorrent – and I say that both as a fan of supernatural fiction and as a Christian. If I can’t lump all four together in one volume, I would probably opt for the first one, seeing as it’s the only book I’ve ever actually got so annoyed at whilst reading that I’ve thrown it across a room. If forced to choose two others to eradicate I would have to first say ‘Crystal’ by Katie Price. With so many great books out there I find it incredibly depressing that a novel that actually markets itself as ‘trash’, and subsequent attempts repeatedly topped the bestseller lists in this country – especially when Price not only didn’t write them, apparently she’s never even read the books sold under her name. Rage. Don’t get me wrong, I love trash – I’m currently addicted to the Sookie Stackhouse series – but in this case, ignorance is not bliss. Finally I would choose Taming The Beast by Emily Maguire. It’s just bad. Not ‘so bad it’s actually good bad’ but just terrible. It claims to portray ‘emotionally challenging’ characters, but they just come across as irritating and self-obsessed whilst the author tries to be existential about their dysfunctional sex lives. I have extra special loathing for this book because I made the mistake of spending money on it (buying it on a whim because of the interesting cover) then forced myself to read the whole thing because damnit, I’d spent £15 on the thing. I deeply regret those lost hours when I could have read something decent. Not that I’m bitter or anything.
You can have lunch with three fictional characters - one from a book, one from a film or play, and one from a TV series. You can eat with them separately or together. Which will they be? Would you introduce them to one another, or to anyone you know? Why?
This is the hardest question! How on earth do I choose? So many of my favourite characters either have multiple incarnations across different media, plus many of them e.g. Jane Eyre, Adorabelle Dearheart (Terry Pratchett’s Discworld) I feel would be probably fairly infuriating in person. Either that or I’m ashamed to say in the case of say, Eric Northman (from the Sookie Stackhouse series/True Blood) or Henry de Tamble (The Time Traveller’s Wife) I would just melt into an embarrassing heap of goo. Hmm… Right the three characters I would have lunch with I think I would have to meet separately –the two women might get on, but they'd certainly object to the slightly smarmy charms of the man I’ve chosen!
First up, it’s quite embarrassing but for the book character I might have to say Captain Holly Short from the Artemis Fowl series by Eoin Colfer. It’s a children’s series about a teenage criminal genius – the eponymous Artemis Fowl – and his involvement in the fairy world. Brilliantly conceived, I started reading them when I was about 13 and though the series has had its hiccoughs along the way (books 4 and 6 I’m looking at you) still adore them. I would of course have chosen Artemis Fowl as a lunch companion, but realised that as a high-functioning sociopath (not dissimilar to the BBC’s recent incarnation of Sherlock Holmes), and a teenaged one at that, he might not actually be a good lunch companion. Whereas Holly Short – the first female Captain of the fairy equivalent to the police force – would be a lot of fun. She’s smart, witty, tough and has a very interesting relationship with our anti-hero that I would of course ask her all about.
From a film or play I would choose the title character from Aristophanes’ Lysistrata - the woman who leads the women of Athens in a sex strike to stop their husbands continuing to fight in a war against Sparta. I directed an adaptation of the ancient Greek text, and have been interested in the original play, and the character, ever since. I think she would fascinating to talk to – a feminist icon dating from Ancient Greece – and I would love to introduce her to the writer of the adaptation I directed, and most likely Arcadian too, as she’d never forgive me if I didn’t!
Finally, from a TV series I think I have to opt for Richard Castle (as played by Nathan Fillon in Castle). He’s charming, intelligent, and I think would be fantastically entertaining. I would introduce him to my boyfriend, who is not only a huge Castle fan, but also sharp enough to puncture any huge ego
If you were given the option, what would you most enjoy never having to do again?
If given the choice I would most enjoy never having to go outside in the cold and dark and wet again. Individually, I can manage. Cold, I can do – there are coats and gloves and warm things to combat it. If it’s dark, if I know it’s brief, or if I’m with someone I trust I’m fine. Wet – well, there are umbrellas. The combination of two of them, I can manage. However, if it’s all three together I simply cannot cope. Take me outside on a wet night in December and I freeze up (pun intended) and want to curl up into a little ball and cry. I’m fully aware, by the way, that I do live in
04 October 2010
Introducing: Arcadian
Arcadian likes piña coladas okay, but she’d rather just cut to the chase and have a margarita. She hates getting caught in the rain, unless she happens to be in a library and has no afternoon plans. Now she will answer some questions posed by her fellow bloggers, so you (yes, you) can get an idea of what she’s really like.
And I guess I’d throw in one of those knitting books where all the patterns are in bright colors and truly hideous and unflattering, not to mention not worth the effort. I considered that picture book that’s supposed to help explain Mommy’s plastic surgery to a four-year-old (yes, it’s totally real, look it up) but I can see that being of use to some future historian writing about twenty-first century attitudes. Knitting books like this one just give knitters a bad name, not to mention bad ideas. Knit something that actually looks good, shit.
Dead: I’m tempted to say Descartes, but I’ve already picked a guy for my live person, and my list is leaning startlingly male. Also, Descartes was probably a dick, despite all the sexy stuff he did with math. You know whom I really want to talk to? Diotima. Socrates, in the Symposium, says that Diotima, a Mantinean woman, taught him the philosophy of Love. Except he means it literally, not euphemistically; he goes on to talk about her question-and-answer method and definitions and so forth. I’d like to talk to her, about how on earth she managed to be a female philosopher in ancient Athens, and what Socrates was like as wee sprout.
If you were given the option, what would you most enjoy never having to do again?
I was tempted to put some form of housework here, but the more I thought about it, the more I thought most household chores fall into two categories – either they’re really not that bad (laundry), or I never do them anyway (vacuuming). I do hate doing the dishes, though.
It’s a toss up between never having to wash a moldy dish without the help of a dishwasher, and never again being stuck waiting for public transportation in bad weather which I am not dressed for when I am late for something important and can’t call. The second is far more irritating, but happens far less often.
You know, rich people with dishwashers and their own cars (even not-rich people who own those two things) really don’t have to do either of those things. Am I setting my sights too low? You be the judge.
If there were a mass book burning, and you had the choice to save three books for your own public consumption, and three books to destroy so that no one could read them ever again, which would they be?
Um. Can I save Shakespeare’s Complete Works, as long as it’s all in one volume? Is that fair?
If I am allowed, I would (predictably) save that book. If I can only have one play, it would be King Lear, which has meant the most to me personally and deals so beautifully with trust and betrayal, parents and children, and reaching for something that was never there to begin with.
I would also save The Mismeasure of Man, by Stephen Jay Gould. That was the first nonfiction book I ever liked, and I think it’s a very powerful exploration of the way our own instincts and hopes for the world lead us wrong. It’s “about” the history of intelligence testing, but it’s really an explanation of why intelligence isn’t quantifiable at all, and every attempt to do so has ended up supporting existing prejudices against different societal groups.
And now I am torn, because it would be either Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen, or Gaudy Night, by Dorothy Sayers. They’re both my platonic form of personal entertainment; I’m an absolute sucker for romance stories about people who are drawn to one another because of their intelligence and ability to learn and grow. (Hey, everyone has her thing. Don’t judge me.) I think in the end it would be Pride and Prejudice, because that’s been my save-in-the-case-of-book-burning go-to book for about ten years now, and much as I love Gaudy Night – and I do really adore it – it doesn’t stand alone quite so well, and doesn’t transcend its era as much. Now I feel dirty, because I just reduced Peter Wimsey to ashes and I can never look at myself in the mirror again.
It’s hard to pick three whole books that I would do away with, since I tend to be of the opinion that you can get something from almost every book, even if it’s just a better understanding of the pressures of the era in which it was written. Like I wouldn’t throw in Mein Kampf, because I really do think it’s valuable to see what was going on in a psychopath’s head at that moment in time, especially when he had such a profound impact on the world.
But I have to toss something. Out of pure spite, I would throw in Labyrinth, by Kate Mosse, which was the very last book I loathed but still finished. (My supply at the time was limited, and I had paid full hardcover price for it.) I am still bitter that it took so much of my time and gave me absolutely nothing in return. The “plot twists” were like gentle curves in an otherwise flat road: visible for miles. After that experience, I don’t finish books that suck really hard in the first chapter or two, and it’s made my life better. But I’ll never get back those hours waiting for something to goddamn happen already, and given the option, I would punish that book.
I’d also toss in I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell, by Tucker Max. There are so many douchebags wandering around the world, I really don’t think they need an instruction manual when half our culture is all about encouraging them. Fate willing, Max’s impact on the world will be negligible, and the sooner it’s over and I never have to hear about him again, the happier I’ll be. I just despise that whole thing, and if a future historian wants to learn about it, she can just watch a Carl’s Jr. commercial.
If you could have an exclusive interview with any two people (real, not fiction) - male or female - one currently living, and one dead who would they be? Why would you want to talk to them? What would you ask them?
Well. Again I am struggling not to waste an opportunity. I would like the caveat in place that the people would have to talk to me, and answer honestly, and not be jackasses; because it was profoundly depressing, the day I realized I would love to go back in time and have a conversation with Aristotle, but I would never be able to, because I am a girl and he wouldn’t give me the time of day. So for the purposes of this, they have to actually talk to me (in my own language, as well).
Living: God, everyone that occurs to me is an actor, how extremely shallow. I’ve long wanted to have a nice gossipy tea with Olivia de Havilland, who is still alive and living somewhere in Paris. I’d ask her if she ever slept with Errol Flynn. And I bet Nathan Fillion would be well hilarious to talk to in real life. (Screw my magic wish, what I should really do is just go to Comic-Con.) But no. Given the chance, I’d have a conversation with Stephen Fry. He knows a lot about acting, sure, but he also knows about writing, speaking, being happy, being sad, and thinking boys are sexy. And judging by QI, he knows pretty much everything about everything anyway. And he seems nice.
You're stuck in a room for a year and you can only have access to three movies. What movies do you pick? note: TV series on DVD do not count. double note: movies illegally recorded so they are back-to-back on one DVD do not count either.
Easy-peasy. My top three movies of all time are The Princess Bride, Singin’ in the Rain, and Penelope. I’ve seen all of them a bunch of times, and no doubt I’d get sick of them after a year, but they’re my favorites because they never fail to put me in a good mood, and if you won’t let me bring Buffy or Castle, well, the choice is already made.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)