Movie trade-off and other things.

[gurdymonkey]

The good: I had no idea what I was getting into when I stumbled upon The Namesake, but I thought, "Hmm, Mira Nair directed it, it may be worth a look." I was not wrong in leaving this story of an Indian family in New York on the babble box this afternoon. Touching, beautiful and very hard to watch when one is homesick, regardless of where one is homesick for.

The bad: I don't suppose there is any chance I can have the two hours back that I wasted on Elizabeth: The Golden Age? I loathed the first one, what with an annoying directorial style in which the overuse of trick shots shooting through curtains and murky windows distract the viewer from the actual story, not to mention the irritating fast-and-loose-with-actual-history bits. I should've known better, but with Cate Blanchett and Geoffrey Rush, one tends to get ones hopes up that it will not be completely irredeemable. It does not help that I just finished To Rule The Waves last month, which actually had a chapter devoted to the Armada. 

The ugly: Me, specifically. Apologies to my readers for being in a foul mood all week and my thanks for your putting up with it.

I did, however, finally pluck my head from between my ass cheeks and devote some thought to what I am going to do for trystan  and T's Halloween do. I believe I have come up with something that complies with the theme of the party (i.e., famous and dead), involves the use of items I already have or can get my hands on by next week, and most importantly, will not be the sort of costume that makes one want to tear it off after twenty minutes of hot, uncomfortable partying. It even involved a modicum of historical research into a period that is not my usual metier and resulted in some rather happy-making results. And no, you do not get to know who it is yet - it's a surprise.

And then there's trying to take satisfaction from posting two juicy paragraphs and a scan from a reliable, well-written, modern source in English to the sca-jml Yahoo group in the continued War Against Stupidity. Because airily waving around an ISBN number and a string of kanji does not constitute knowledge sharing  if nobody else can read it, much less get hold of said book. If just once, JUST ONCE, this person said, "My source is Kanji Kanji Kanji by Professor Tanaka and the passage, as best as I can translate says' Blah!'" that would be different. What we get, however, is the ever popular, "I can't find my copy at the moment, it's in a box somewhere."  'Scuse me, but I keep the books I use where I can find 'em. I read and retain more than 20% of random content.

Seriously. There are certain contributors whose word I will take because I trust their expertise. If I don't, I reserve the right to request source citations, question sweeping generalizations or prove the poster wrong by, guess what! Quoting sources.

Comments

[takadai-no-tora.livejournal.com]

"..airily waving around an ISBN number and a string of kanji does not constitute knowledge sharing if nobody else can read it, much less get hold of said book"

Preach it, sister!

[danabren.livejournal.com]

WORD!

[czina.livejournal.com]

Heheh - sounds like the one person is one step WORSE than Wikipedia. At least Wikipedia tries to give sources for their information, and admit when they don't have more. And everyone can read the same information, and know the person is using Wikipedia as a source.

(zen question of the day)"If you have a book in a box, and can't find it - do you really have it, and are you qualified to share the information?" I would say no. Of course, my office (and my husband) doesn't appreciate me having research books all over the place - but at least I can say with some authority: 'So and so says this, on page so and so - and I can scan a copy if you need it'.