I'd like to start off this update by bemoaning my lack of productivity of late. I've been doing quite a bit of private teaching and it has drained me of creative juices. I've also been struggling for the last two weeks to get my head round Mat Coward's intriguing short fiction collection So Far, So Near. I've never reviewed a short story collection and I'm having trouble making the thing cohere into something detailed and yet intelligible without it devolving into paragraphs with inane labels such as "stories with attractive women in them" and "stories with aliens in them". It will work its way free eventually I'm sure but writing about 15 little stories is a different kettle of fish to writing in great depth about one story.
I've also decided to cut back on the number of books I review in order to write a bit more about film. So expect more film reviews and less book reviews from me in the near future. I've decided to try and cheerlead what I think is important a bit more than I have been in these past few months. This is partly because I enjoy the immediacy of seeing a film and then writing about it compared to the process of reading a book and then writing a review later.
The other reason why I've decided to make this shift is that I think that in the SFF universe, people really don't get the criticism they deserve. I don't think that people get the criticism they deserve in the realm of books either (which is why I'm jointly editing the new webzine Scalpel), but I think that the sheer knuckle-headedness of the Long Form Hugo over the years says a lot about how SF fans really don't get to see the best in film SFFH. I mean, there's something very wrong with the world if people are switched on enough to nominate the excellent Peter Watt's Blindsight for best novel but a film as intelligent and as complex (though admittedly flawed) as Pan's Labyrinth sneaks in on a re-count.
Anyway, such matters dealt with, I have a small collection of linky-poos for your good folks out there.
First - A BBC News article about a "new generation of smart drugs". I put that sentence in inverted commas as we've been here before... a number of times. Time and again we've been told of some drug that makes us more intelligent whereas in fact it merely makes us see things that aren't really there (like LSD) or make us feel that we're hugely intelligent whilst in fact making us arrogant twats that talk utter cock whilst grinding our teeth to dust (like cocaine). However, these drugs apparently work by helping concentration, recall and banishing tiredness or lethargy. Cue the inevitable leftie hand-wringing about whether or not poor people will ever be able to afford it but this is really a red herring. Given that you can get plastic surgery and fertility treatment on the NHS I challenge anyone to think of a reason why we should not put these drugs in the water like fluoride if they really do work.
Second - Again from BBC News. Upon the release of the "new" Tolkien book, the usual retinue of patronising orcs made an appearance at Waterstone's Picadilly. Aside from the entirely expected waves of indifference that washed over me upon hearing that the book had been released, I was struck by the fact that Tolkien's grandson made a comment about how the books were art and how rather distasteful it was that Tolkien had become a brand. Seeing as the Tolkien family have been entirely responsible for building Tolkien's books into a global brand, this strikes me as a quite breath-taking level of either naivete or self-delusion. If Tolkien's work was still art does anyone really think that his grandson would be appearing on a stage in a bookshop with some blokes in goblin costumes? I don't know what's more depressing... the fact that there were orcs in costumes or the fact that people evidently travelled from Australia to buy the book (obviously they've never heard of Amazon and Federal Express Dahn Unda). I think if people read more frequently then we'd get a bit less of these ridiculous literary spectacles.
Third - An interesting article about sex-based videogames from Gamesindustry.biz. The article touches upon two particular areas that are close to my heart. Firstly, there the idea of people "playing roles" online safe in the knowledge that their true identity and reputation will remain intact no matter how obnoxiously they behave online. The downside of this phenomenon is people being pricks on forums and in online videogame play but the upside is that people can also explore certain tastes and ideas they might have without ever having to deal with the social or physical repercussions of such tastes. So, for example, if you're bi-curious you can go online and pretend to be gay or a woman. It's an interesting phenomenon that rarely gets discussed or thought about and I think that's a pity. Secondly, there's the currently absurd situation in which it is possible to walk into a shop on the high-street and buy a game where you kill people with plastic bags and nailguns but it isn't possible to buy a game in which you simulate a realistic sexual relationship. The article mentions the concept of an "adult only" game, which is evidently different to a game available only to adults... such as the Grand Theft Auto games or Manhunter. Semantically that's a distinction without a difference but in the real world there's evidently a big difference between an "adults only game" that won't be sold in the shops and a game only available to adults that will sell hundreds of thousands of copies.
Fourth - As a reviewer and as a reader of reviews I'm largely indifferent to the question of "spoilers". This very niche term is the idea of a review or a discussion of a piece of work that gives away a key plot-point. I'm largely indifferent because I don't care about reading spoilers and as a reviewer I think that if you care so much about a piece of media that you're likely to get annoyed about spoilers then what the fuck are you doing reading a review as you're clearly going to buy or watch it. However, there's being unconcerned with spoilers and there's being the editor of the Radio Times who cares so little about Doctor Who spoilers he sticks them on the front page.
Comments