The Flying Inn

If a thing is worth doing, it is worth doing badly

2006-05-23T15:01:00.000-04:00

I'm retiring this blog 'cause I never post here. But go to my other blog, The Stuff that dreams are made of for movie stuff!

Wuthering Prejudice

2006-01-12T15:40:00.000-05:00

Saw the new Pride and Prejudice adaptation this past weekend and was pretty underwhelmed. Well, actually, the movie was about as I excepted (Jane Austen gets the Bronte treatment), but so many people (critics, bloggers, and normies) had raved over the film and said how romantic it was (that should have been my first tip-off, of course, since P&P is not really a romance so much as it is a romantic comedy, for lack of a better term), that I thought I'd better see it and see what all the fuss is about. Cacciaguida makes the comparison to the Firth/Ehle miniseries, and notes that the miniseries still has the advantage, but he's far too generous and forgiving of the new film, IMO. The movie has its merits, I'll admit (mostly the gorgeous cinematography). And I do agree (much to my surprise since I normally hate her) that Keira Knightley is a good Lizzie.

But the whole thing just felt a little off; the plot elements were there, for the most part, but the tone of the film was all wrong. It wasn't funny enough; several of the characters had been made less outrageous and more sympathetic (Mr. Collins comes to mind); and too much of the film was melancholy and misty. Why does Darcy propose the first time in the rain? Why are they standing near some old monument instead of sitting in a drawing room? Why does it look like they are about to kiss when Elizabeth, at that moment, is furious with Darcy and hates his guts? None of it bears any resemblance to the novel, except maybe a few snatches of dialogue (and not nearly enough of Austen's words found their way into the film for me). In the end, when I'm looking for that P&P fix (and the book is unavailable), I'd rather watch Firth and Ehle and the rest of that wonderful cast in the mini than endure this shadow version.

For critics with whom I agree, more or less, see:
a snippet from Mark Steyn (via Peter Chattaway)
Donald Sutherland looks stoned
Hater of the Snog and more
and my favorite, Anthony Lane from the New Yorker

New Look!

2006-01-08T16:39:00.000-05:00

New year, new look. Orange is my favorite color, but the old template just wasn't doing it for me anymore.

Also: Please draft him Detroit

Make your own superhero!

Harry Potter Quizes

Not really blogging, but I am haunting the comments box

2005-12-12T14:03:00.000-05:00

. . . of Jeff Overstreet, where a fun little debate has started over the faults of the new Narnia movie. I've been arguing from the pro-Narnia movie and pro-LOTR movies stance. Most others are arguing that Adamson's Narnia is mediocre/okay but not nearly as great as it could've/should've been. Others are arguing that LOTR is crep, and that Narnia is far superior. For my part, I've seen LWW (The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe) three times, and cried every single time, loved Aslan as much as I've loved any character on screen, and thought it was a truly wonderful film. But, of course, it's no Peter Jackson-LOTR. Frankly, I don't think we'll ever see a fantasy film that will compare with LOTR, so I wasn't expecting it from LWW. I'm of the opinion that the book Lewis wrote is just not as good as the one Tolkien wrote (though I do adore the Narnia books a great deal), so I never expected a Narnia-inspired film to be as good as PJ's LOTR.

Blog rolling

2005-10-24T14:30:00.000-04:00

Some additions to the roll call:

Scrutinies, funny teacher blog
Mansfield Fox, mostly because of the cute picture of the fox (and being a Yankees fan) (and also being smart, which seems redundant, I know)
The Anchoress, who needs no introduction
The Cornell Society for a Good Time, best name ever
For God, For Country and For Yale, also well named and has Latin of the Week

Finally, though I'm leaving it on the blog roll, Fanboy Rampage! will be blogging no more! My nearly daily stop for comics news and fanboy snark will be missed.

Some actual real blog posts to come! (including reviews of old *obscure* horror films from the 30s)

Chesterton on the Victorians

2005-09-20T11:30:00.000-04:00

"What was really unsatisfactory in Victorian literature is something much easier to feel than to state. It was not so much a superiority in the men of other ages to the Victorian men. It was a superiority of Victorian men to themselves. The individual was unequal. Perhaps that is why the society became unequal: I cannot say. They were lame giants; the strongest of them walked on one leg a little shorter than the other. A great man in any age must be a common man, and also an uncommon man. Those that are only uncommon men are perverts and sowers of pestilence. But somehow the great Victorian man was more and less than this. He was at once a giant and a dwarf."

from The Victorian Age in Literature

Avast, ye scurvy bilge rats!

2005-09-19T16:14:00.000-04:00

It be Talk Like a Pirate Day! We at the Flying Inn shall see what crawled out o' the ol' bung hole and raise a glass o' grog to the Jolly Roger!

And for today ye may call me Mad Jenny Kid! Arr.

My pirate name is:

Mad Jenny Kidd

Every pirate is a little bit crazy. You, though, are more than just a little bit. Even though you're not always the traditional swaggering gallant, your steadiness and planning make you a fine, reliable pirate. Arr!

Get your own pirate name from fidius.org.

The 40-Year Old Virgin -- Theology of the Body as R-rated sex comedy

2005-08-25T14:35:00.000-04:00

I never would have believed that The 40-Year Old Virgin would end the way it did, or that it's message would be so clear about love and sex. I expected another American Pie sex-crazed movie that would smother us with messages about how special sex can be when you do it with someone you love (though not necessarily someone you're married to), but instead I got a hilarious (and filthy) movie that affirms chastity and marriage as the means to a happy and successful relationship. And Hair-inspired musical numbers.

Should we even bother teaching Literature in schools?

2005-08-25T13:43:00.000-04:00

I ask because I plan to spend the rest of my professional life doing just that, and I wonder if it's a useless vocation. I have a pretty large extended family, with lots of cousins and uncles who are men, and not one of my male relatives reads. I don't mean they're illiterate, I mean they never read anything more than the sports page of the Free Press. Young, old, really old -- if they crack open a book it's either The Purpose Driven Life or a biography of Secretariat or guitar tabs for Who songs (actually, this last statement's a little unfair; my brother reads Harry Potter, and I have a cousin who I have recently tried to corrupt with comic books). But they've all taken English classes in school, and read some of the "Classics," and yet none of them seems to have developed a love for literature, or a curiosity about Dostoevsky, Dante, or Shakespeare.

My grandpa likes to chalk this up to the fact that girls like English and boys like math and science, and that's just the way it is. But if men don't like to read, then why are there so many men who write? William, Ernest, and J.R.R. are not girls names, you know. And what about the men who do read literature on a regular basis, why are they so different from the trend?

I've been wondering lately if the teaching of literature in school ends up ruining good books for kids (and boys in particular). Even in my own experience (as a bookworm), being forced to read certain books (*cough*OldManInTheSea*cough*) damaged my view of what great "Literature" is, made me question and suspect those books that were said to be classics. Luckily, I've read enough now to know what I like and don't like, and that James Joyce really is a bit of a bore when compared to Shakespeare and Malory and Dickens.

What I fear, though, is the day when I teach Le Morte D'Arthur to my class and they find it just as boring as I once found John Steinbeck, and I've contributed to the ruin of literature in their minds. Sometimes I wonder if it would be better if we just let children discover great books on their own and not make it a part of school or obligation. But then I remember that in today's world with its video games and ipods and 500 channels, books aren't exactly a medium most 14-year-old boys will be picking up any time soon.

And what I fear most of all is turning into Robin Williams from Dead Poets Society. Teaching English lit is hard. *pout*

He's good-bad, but he's not evil

2005-08-25T13:22:00.000-04:00

That pretty much sums up my opinion of Snape. I want to write something about Harry Potter, the sixth book, what I expect to see in Book 7, etc. but why should I, really, when Janet at Quoth The Maven has covered all things Harry better than I ever could? Read her posts about What happens next, Snape, How to destroy a Horcrux, Peter Pettigrew and the Life Debt, "Stoppered Death," and more.

Extreme (Re)Make-Over

2005-08-11T12:00:00.000-04:00

Sean Collins has mentioned a remake that he's dreading: the new Neil LaBute Wicker Man. I've known about this film for awhile and I share Sean's apprehension. I watched The Wicker Man about three months ago for the first time and it was pretty frellin' awesome. I'm coming from a slightly different point of view (being one of those horribly repressed Christians myself) than the one Sean mentions here, so I was always on the side of Sgt. Howie (even if he was a bit of a drip), but the film does an incredible job of not revealing "what's up" until the very end. Terrifying and brilliant.

The new Wicker Man, however, looks LAME in just about every single way. The name, in the context of the new film, makes no sense whatsoever. If you've read Caesar's Gallic Wars then you understand the significance of a wicker man; it makes absolutely no sense in an American context. I'm not even sure why they're using the name, because it's not like the original film was so widely known that they can bank on making money with name recognition (I only came in contact with the original movie because my Latin professor mentioned it while we were translating the relevant passage in Caesar).

I've been thinking about why this remake bothers me so much (besides the fact that I think it will be a terrible movie). Vince Vaughn Psycho was stupid, but it didn't really bother me besides in the normal, this-is-sacrilege-to-the-god-like-name-of-Hitchcock kinda way. I knew the film would flop, and that people would forget it, and that Hitch's film would endure. I think my disgust about this new Wicker Man stems from the fact that the original is a cult movie, not widely known, and therefore not protected from near-oblivion if this new movie is a success. Sure, sure -- the diehard horror people will always know and love the original. But average joe and jane will think Nic Cage and New England neo-paganism when they think "Wicker Man" and that bugs. I'm reminded of how William Wyler's Ben Hur is remembered and esteemed while Ben Hur: A Tale of the Christ languishes in the silent-movies-are-weird-and-boring file. My only hope is that the original film gets recognized as the superior film that it is and more people hear about it. Somehow, I doubt this will happen.

And whether the new Wicker Man flops or breaks records, it's still going to end up in Blockbuster eventually. Meanwhile, I had to search ten rental stores and four libraries to find my dear old Edward Woodward.

Do I sound like a snooty film snob? Good.

Not very much of a review of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

2005-08-05T14:47:00.000-04:00

It seems like you either really love or really hate Johnny Depp's performance in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Roger Ebert wrote that Depp reminded him of Michael Jackson, and honestly, I would have never made that connection without it being introduced by Ebert first. And frankly, though I can understand why some would, I just don't think of Michael Jackson at all when I see Depp's performance (and I've seen the film twice).

Depp aside (since, as I've said, you either love or hate him in this movie), I think Burton's remake is fantastic and an improvement in nearly every way from the original film, with the exception of the Willy Wonka character. Overall I like what Burton and Depp have done (especially in creating the backstory and father/family issues for Willy), but Gene Wilder is still incredible in the earlier film, and it will be his performance alone which will compel me to watch the original.

Now, in general I come down on the side of "why remake a good movie?!" and I think Hollywood should spend more time trying to remake bad movies -- movies that often had good premises but were botched in the execution -- than in trying to recapture the "magic" of a great film (look no further than the remake of Psycho). But I've never felt Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory was a great movie, so I've never had a problem with the idea of a remake. I liked the old movie well enough, and it was great to laugh at the parody/tribute shows that Futurama and Family Guy did a while ago, and occasionally I would do my Veruca Salt impression ("Daddy, I want an Oompa-Loompa"), but Willy Wonka was never a sacred cow for me (unlike Cheaper By the Dozen, one of my all-time favorites, whose remake I have yet to see, on principal).

Talking with my sister-in-law, she liked the new film well enough, but she still much prefers the Wilder version. She didn't care for the new Veruca Salt, thought the new songs were okay (but nothing to the "Oompa-loompa, doopity doo" ditty), and thought Johnny Depp was "really weird" (and not in a good way). For her, the old film was just better, though I suspect it's not a case of the older film actually being better but of having been there first. For my part, I understand this tendency. It's the "movies/t.v./comics/music/life was better back then" tendency that seems to afflict us all, especially as we get older and try to impart our tastes onto a younger generation.

The funny thing is, though, that some eras really were/are better than others when it comes to cultural stuff, and it's not always the stuff from the past that's better. Jon Hastings has a couple of good posts dealing with the fallacy that films today are rubbish compared with past decades, and for myself, I would argue that one-hour television dramas have never been better than they are now, thanks in large part to The Sopranos and old-school ER (my theory being that the Golden Age of the Situation Comedy was the late 50s/early 60s, while the Golden Age of Drama is right now). And the quality/variety of animated shows available today on basic cable is unprecedented. I wouldn't want to go back to the days of G.I. Joe and Transformers and Jem for the world, though I, like all good Gen-Xers, hold a special place in my heart for them. It's a good time for animation lovers, and also for those of us who enjoy spectacle at the movies. Technology has made it possible to see things we could have never seen thirty, forty, fifty years ago (though bless you Ray Harryhausen for trying).

Which brings me back to Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. I think all of the children are improved in Burton's film (yes, even Veruca), I think the Willy Wonka father/family issues help set the film apart (in a good way) from its 70s counterpart (how does the original even end, anyway? what was it suppossed to be about, thematically? honestly, I can't even remember), and I love Freddie Highmore as Charlie. But what I love most about the film is the spectacle. Story, characters, themes -- those things are okay. But for me, one of cinema's greatest qualities is its ability to create spectacle -- a combination of images and sound, color and movement, that dazzles the audience and immerses them in something they've never experienced before. Burton's film does this (heck, this is the one thing Burton always does well) and for two hours I'd rather see his swooping, weirdly delicious world than the horribly outdated, everything-seems-to-be-dipped-in-orangeness that spills over the edges of the Wilder film like all relics from the hippy-dippy 1970s era.

Blog. . . blog. . . yes, I think I've heard the name before. . .

2005-08-03T14:28:00.000-04:00

The weather has been so utterly fantastic for the past couple of weeks that I've not really been inside long enough to blog. So, here's me saying "sorry" to all (three) of my readers -- I have not forgotten you!

Have read the new Harry Potter, and I might write something, and I might not. So many others on the web have already written brilliantly about it that I'm not sure I would add anything other than, "yeah, me too!"

Finally, I'm working on a series of forthcoming posts that deal with teaching literature in grade school (and how reading literature in school "ruins" The Classics for most kids), why boys (in general) don't like to read, and how I can avoid at all costs being the "cool" English teacher that spouts lame Carpe Diem, discussing-our-problems-in-a-giant-circle-is-better-than-taking-tests crap that seems to infect a lot of my high school English teacher brethren.

Also, I'm thinking of a way to defend the new Charlie and the Chocolate Factory movie (which I've seen twice and love) that doesn't involve an argument based mainly on my undying love for all things Johnny Depp.

Make mine. . . DC?

2005-07-19T17:45:00.000-04:00

Devon over at Seven Hells! has several great posts about his favorite DC comics (the ones that made him a DC fan).

I, sadly, don't have such a long history reading comics, nor such a long love affair with DC, but I do, in fact, also prefer DC over Marvel. You know what? If you would have told me this one year ago, that I would be buying mostly DC titles, that I would be buying the different mini-series' and crossovers tying into the big DC "event," that I would be blogging about how much I love the DC universe, that I would be frantically looking for back-issues of Hawkman, Starman, and The Elongated Man -- well, I would not have believed you, that's what!

I can't say things started off well for DC. I bought Hawkman because I liked Hawkgirl from the Justic League cartoon. Heh. Not exactly like the cartoon is it? At that time I was buying Bendis's Daredevil, reading X-Men Marvel Essentials, shuffling through the various X-Men titles trying to find one I could understand (unsuccessfully). I liked Daredevil and the X-Men as characters so that's what I thought I'd like in my comics. And then one day Spiderman and Doctor Strange and Luke Cage (who?) and Reed Richards showed up in my Daredevil comic and I was like, "erm? What are these guys doing here?" See, I like a lot of the Marvel characters individually, but I don't like Spiderman showing up in my Daredevil book. I realized that Marvel as a universe didn't work for me, that I had separated Daredevil's New York from Spiderman's New York, and to have the two of them fighting evil side-by-side was weird and kinda silly. The Marvel universe's attempt at more "realistic" comics struck me as being utterly unrealistic.

But in DC! In DC, most of the major heroes have their own city to fight crime in, and the city fits the character, and the universe seems like it really exists because it's not trying to pretend it really exists. There's also more malleability in the DC universe. Just look at the old Adam West Batman, the Tim Burton Batman films, and the new Batman Begins. All Batman, all different, all work (IMO).

And on a more superficial note: DC does a better job of advertising what it publishes. Now, I'm not talking about Previews, or press releases in Wizard and on the internet. I'm talking about in the back of a comic book. At the end of my DC books there're little blurbs about upcoming series, on-going series, what's going to happen in the next issue of the series I'm holding in my hands, etc. It's helpful. It lets me know about books I wouldn't otherwise know about (cause I'm a relative newbie, remember?). It gets me excited about what's going to happen next issue.

And frankly, more of my favorite writers are writing for DC. Morrison, Simone, Waid, Diggle, Willingham.

It's almost a little embarrassing how quickly I've come over to the DC side, really. And how far Marvel has fallen for me. I'm not even interested in what's going on in Daredevil right now, and Astonishing X-Men seems like it takes forever to come out so I've totally forgotten what's going on.

But a couple of weeks ago I bought my first Superman comic (Action Comics #827), something I never, ever thought I would do. And guess what? I can't wait to find out what happens next!

The Flying Inn is flying again!

2005-07-12T20:51:00.000-04:00

This time my travels around the 'sphere have led me to a fantastic blog called Crisis/Boring Change, and I'm proud and honored to say that they have linked to me, so I, in turn, will add them to my blogroll. The Inn raises a glass in honor to you Crisis/Boring Change!

"Fade into Bolivian"

2005-07-12T20:44:00.000-04:00

Mansfield Fox has a fantastic idea for the SCOTUS that I heartly agree with.

"Film is not the art of scholars but illiterates."

2005-07-12T20:04:00.000-04:00

This is a quote from Werner Herzog that I think is appropriate for the interesting discussion happening over Spielberg's War of the Worlds. Sean Collins gives a perceptive and persuasive review of the movie over at his blog and I have to say, his reading of the ending actually is really cool, and I might just adopt such an interpretation myself in order to salvage what I thought was a laughable ending. Afterall, I thought the whole ending was a dream when I first saw the movie.

(The Forager, as well, has a great rebuttle to Sean's review, and I stand by my earlier comments that Spielberg's ending robs the movie of the serious emotional weight it was putting out in its first 110 minutes)

The thing about Sean's analysis of War of the Worlds' ending is that it's an over-analysis. Of course, that's the wonderful thing about Art. We are all free to interpret a work of art in any way we choose. But to say that Spielberg intended this reading of the film, that he was going for this subversive critique of happy endings, is a stretch too far, I think. Spielberg is too good a director to fail so utterly at making his point; he understands Herzog's maxim. The audience should know what's going on in a scene -- not always in terms of story or plot, those elements can be confusing and the film can still "work" overall -- but a scene should be clear in terms of tone. An art for illiterates, not scholars. Tongue-in-cheek humor doesn't work if the audience doesn't know it's tongue-in-cheek. Similarly, if Spielberg is trying to be subversive in order to make his point, the point won't be made if the audience doesn't know that Spielberg is being subversive. If most people only see War of the Worlds' "happy ending" as an unambiguous happy ending, then either Spielberg failed to make clear what he was trying to do, or he really meant it to be an unambiguous happy ending.

Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone:

2005-07-07T16:51:00.000-04:00

"I want to say one thing, specifically to the world today - this was not a terrorist attack against the mighty and the powerful, it was not aimed at presidents or prime ministers, it was aimed at ordinary, working-class Londoners, black and white, Muslim and Christian ... young and old ... that isn't an ideology, it isn't even a perverted fate, it is an indiscriminate attempt at mass murder.

"They seek to divide London, they seek Londoners to turn against each other ... this city of London is the greatest in the world because everybody lives side by side in harmony. Londoners will not be divided by this cowardly attack...

"I know that you [the terrorists] personally do not fear to give your own life in exchange to taking others (that is why you are so dangerous) ... but I know you do fear you may fail in your long-term objective to destroy our free society ... in the days that follow, look at our airports, look at our seaports and look at our railway stations ... you will see that people from the rest of Britain, people from around the world, will arrive in London to become Londoners, to fulfill their dream and achieve their potential ... whatever you do, however many you kill, you will fail."

via The Corner

The 10 Comics that kept me reading

2005-07-04T12:58:00.000-04:00

I was lucky, I think, to start my entry into comics after The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen was in theaters. The couple of X-Men floppies I had bought (Claremont's Extraordinary X-Men, I think) were lackluster to say the least, but seeing Moore's graphic novel on the stands at Borders (a comic book? about classic literary characters fighting evil? that rewarded the readers' knowledge of 19th century literature? a comic book?) was the spark I needed to dig deeper into what the comics world offered. These ten books broadened my understanding of what modern comics are, and I think that without them I wouldn't have fallen in love with the medium.
(In no particular order):

10. The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen by Alan Moore & Kevin O'Neill
It's bloody. Gruesome. Has the reader first meet Allan Quatermain whacked out on opium in Cairo. I had no idea that comics could be like this. There are better books out there; better Alan Moore books in fact. But nothing yet has compared with that first shock and thrill and delighted surprise I experienced when reading League. In my limited experience, I thought I knew what comic books were. The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen showed me that I had no idea.

9. Astro City by Kurt Busiek & Brent E. Anderson, covers by Alex Ross
I think there's a collective idea in American culture of what the superhero story should be. Comic book readers, superhero fans, the wider non-comics culture -- we all share this idea, this collective imagining of flying men and women in masks and capes, of tall skyscrapers, of science fiction and civic duty melded together into a tale at once fantastic and familiar. Sure, superheroes are suppossed to be "gritty" and realistic these days, but that's because the genre is being subverted, just as all popular genres are subverted after the conventions become stale. But Astro City. Astro City is that collective idea. It's the superhero comic that seems to have always existed, the comic we've all had in our imaginations. Is it too much to say that Astro City is like the Platonic ideal of superhero comics? Yeah, maybe that's too much. But Astro City is what I imagined superhero comics to be, and yet at the same time, it's more than I'd ever imagined.

8. Battle Royale by Koushun Takami and Masayuki Taguchi
I can't say this is some great, genre-defining, literary masterpiece. I can't even say it makes a lot of sense (the plot holes are ridiculously huge). But I can say this comic is so addictive, so utterly depraved, so freakin' awesome that I can't stop reading it. I'm a bit of a sucker for graphic violence, and Battle Royale is to graphic violence what Willy Wonka's chocolate factory is to candy. I'm a little embarrassed (and also a little disturbed) that I like this comic so much. But it's like getting shot up with adrenalin, reading this comic. Or like smoking crack. I haven't decided yet, but I can't put it down long enough to find out.

7. Ghost World by Daniel Clowes
My first dip into the independent "comix" waters, and I expected cynical gen-x humor, a critique of modern suburban society, and swear words and nudity. Instead, I cried a little, recognized myself in the characters, thought about a friend whom I've kinda drifted away from, not because of any falling-out between us, just because she and I are slowly turning into different people, and realized that I really do love comics. Also, I laughed like hell.

6. Batman: Year One by Frank Miller and David Mazzucchelli
I've always loved Batman. On t.v., in the movies. The Bruce Timm Batman animated series, the live-action Adam West cornball 1960s show. The Tim Burton films. But never the comics. I had never read a Batman comic. And since Batman had kind of faded after the horrible Schumacher movies, I had sorta lost touch with him. But then I actually got into comics, and I figured I should read Batman, because I'd always loved the character. And, of course, I didn't know where to start. So I picked up Year One 'cause I had heard Miller's name before and knew he was suppossed to be one of the "greats," and this is how I make decisions on which books to read, plus, with a name like "Year One" it seemed like a good starting point. And then I read Year One. And then I read it again. And now I've read it at least half a dozen times. And I love Batman again.

5. Watchmen by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons
So much has been said and written about this book that my insignificant ramblings are pretty unneccesary. It's as good as they say it is. My only regret is that I wasn't reading comics when it first came out. Something this revolutionary in the comics world must have been incredible to witness firsthand. Who knew that all it took was six pages of a comic to blow my mind?

4. Light Brigade by Peter J. Tomasi and Peter Snejbjerg
Maybe it's the Catholic in me, but I'm a sucker for religious imagery. And the image of Longinus, thrusting his spear through the stomach of a fallen angel, who's disguised as a Nazi, during World War II -- well, it was too good for me to pass up a book like this. If anyone's noticing a pattern here in my selections (besides the fact that I like gore), it's that I'm taken by the variety of stories being told in comics. Yeah, there's still an overwhelming emphasis on supers (and I love supers!), but there's so much more; so much that's not spandex and secret identities. And Light Brigade is a DC title -- not Vertigo, not some indie publisher. I do have to note (though this doesn't have anything to do with the quality of the book overall) it was nice to see Christianity treated with respect, and as the good force in the struggle against evil. Even if the theology was unorthodox (to say the least!), it was cool to see one of the great religions of Western Civilization be on the side of the heroes, instead of being essentially irrelevant (as it is in so many of our modern stories), or worse, a force for evil (which, unfortunately, sometimes is the case in a few stories). But that's just gravy. Light Brigade is a creative, entertaining, awesomely drawn adventure, and one of my favorite books.

3. The Losers by Andy Diggle and Jock
Fun. Fun, fun, fun, fun, fun. This book has the best action sequences in comics right now. Jock's art is so utterly perfect for this story of presumed-dead CIA agents on a rogue mission to find out who set them up, that I cry a little inside whenever I find out there's a fill-in artist. Jock is my favorite artist at the moment, and I seriously wish Vertigo would release his covers as full-size posters so I could hang them on my wall. God, this comic is just so damn fun. Fun, fun, fun, fun, fun. And cooler than any one comic has a right to be. If I were trying to get someone into comics who likes action but thinks superheroes are for nerds, this is the comic I'd give them.

2. Thor: Visionaries by Walter Simonson
For a girl who studies Latin in college, it's pretty much a given that I'm going to have a knowledge of and affection for Classical mythology. But truth be told, my heart belongs to the gods of the North. Odin, Freya, Balder, Thor, Valhalla, Ragnarok -- these are the names that stir my heart. That's why the idea of the Norse god of thunder wearing a silly costume and fighting crime in New York has, for the most part, filled me with disgust. In the so-called "realistic" Marvel universe, why would the god Thor even a.) exist and b.) have a secret identity and be a member of the Avengers? Frankly, I always thought Thor as a Marvel superhero was lame and a horrible degredation of a great mythological character. So why do I love Walt Simonson's Thor? Well, for one thing, he got rid of the secret identity/persona of Donald Blake (Odin be praised). But really, I can't explain why this book doesn't enrage me the way virtually all other Thor books do. Maybe it's Simonson's fantastic art. Maybe it's the way that he has DOOM ripple across the page in bold, red letters. Maybe it's some horrible pagan magic he's got working for him. Maybe it's because Simonson uses the mythology, respects it, and treats it with the seriousness it deserves. Or maybe I just like Beta Ray Bill. Honestly, my affection for this book is a total mystery to me.

1. The Ring of the Nibelung Volumes 1 & 2 by P. Craig Russell
Now this is Teutonic mythology! Wagner's Ring cycle is great material for a story, but I was blown away by Russell's art. The layouts, the coloring, the lettering -- this isn't just a story told with words and some nice pictures thrown in, it's a comic, a seemless combination of art and words into a unified whole. Russell does everything right, from his depictions of characters to his pacing. Probably not a book that shows up on a lot of "Top Ten" lists, I'm sure, but if I had to choose just one comic to read for the rest of my life, this would be it.

Why these ten books? For some reason they stuck with me, clung to my imagination and awakened this person inside me I didn't even know existed: a comic book reader.

Movie Time: War of the Worlds (spoilers)

2005-06-30T00:12:00.000-04:00

Back in the day, I used to play in my high school symphony band, and our conductor would always say that the audience will forgive you anything as long as you finish strong. Now, that's putting it a little too simply, I think, but there's quite a bit of truth to the idea that a good ending will make up for a lot.

What happens, though, when everything is great except the ending? The new War of the Worlds movie was terrifying, visually arresting, and highly entertaining. But the end. Gah. The end was ridiculous (and no, I'm not talking about how the aliens are defeated -- I was cool with this because I'm familiar with the source material). The ending of this movie was so unbelievably unbelievable I seriously thought Tom Cruise's character was dreaming, and that he was going to wake up from his happy-ending-dream and realize that no, in fact, not everyone survived, it was a frickin' alien invasion, and the chances are slim to none that every single person you care about, and their significant others, and their grandparents, and their Boston townhouse were able to survive. But no, it was not a dream, it was how this movie ended and it was really disappointing. Maybe they just have a lot of germs in Boston or something, and Miranda Otta spent the entire invasion doing laundry, just in case, you know, her ex-husband and their children made it all the way from New Jersey without dying so she could greet them at the front door with perfectly flawless and clean clothes.

I want to recommend this movie, because so much of it was really fun and perfect for a summer movie. But that ending. The end of a movie, like the end of a piece of music, is your last impression, the thing that sticks with you immediately, before you've had a chance to think over the various parts and scenes and remember your favorites. And the end of War of the Worlds was lame. I can't really say anything else because I'm so disappointed by it.

New to Comics: One Year Later (Part II)

2005-06-28T22:10:00.000-04:00

So what started me down the path of comics again, after that last dismal experience (related below)? Well, two words, actually: T. V.

I started watching X-Men: Evolution mostly because of the movies, and at first I thought it pretty much sucked. But eventually, especially around the end of the second season, it started to hit its stride, and pretty soon I became a fanatic: 'shipping for certain couples, talking about it with whomever I could corner, getting up on Saturday mornings just to watch new episodes. But once the show ended I realized I still needed my X-Men fix, and I realized that the easiest place to get this was comics. I was no longer as daunted as I had been about comics because I kinda knew what I wanted. And the internet was clutch in helping me find good stuff (see this excellent Return to Comics post). To make a hugely long story short, I'm now a comic book reader, hardcore, and to some extent, my purchasing choices are still influenced by television shows.

Like Justice League/Justice League Unlimited! Thanks to this fantastic show I'm reading books of varying quality, but I'm having a lot of fun getting into the DCU. For the first time since starting down the comics road, I finally get the appeal of the DC "universe" (sure I had read some Marvel books and some DC books, but I was never really into the larger continuity -- until now).

Because I've been in a whirlwind love affair for the past 12 months (with comics of course!), I've been thinking about how to get others to share in the love, and to a small extent I've succeeded. I've introduced a younger family member to the four colors and he's succumbing, though slowly. Others have been a little more resistant (you know who you are manga-lover). But I'm not sure comics can ever be "mainstream" because it takes too much work to really get into them. Even with the impetus of good comics-based cartoons on t.v. stirring me on, it took a lot of research and experimentation to finally find what I like. Of course, maybe that's the way it is with all hobbies, and I'm just noticing it now 'cause I'm new to this sort of thing. But I understand and share the desire of so many, to get more people into comics, because I love this new world I've entered and I want to share it with as many people as I can.

2005-06-27T12:21:00.000-04:00

Just finished watching this movie, and I can't get enough William Powell! The Thin Man movies are an interesting hybrid of comedy and the hardboiled detective drama, and I'm trying to think if there are any other films out there that combined these two genres as effectively. The comedy aspects and the hardboiled stuff are balanced perfectly so that neither waters down the other, and yet both co-exist in the film without it feeling like you're watching two different movies.

Plus, Nicky's drunk all the time, so he would fit right in here at the Flying Inn!

New to Comics: One Year Later (Part I)

2005-06-27T11:29:00.000-04:00

I started reading comics about a year ago. For some reason, I had never really gotten into comics as a child (with the exception of Calvin & Hobbes, and a Dick Tracy movie tie-in comic, and some old, obscure sci-fi graphic novel my aunt gave me), which is weird because -- despite being a girl -- I was into all the stuff one might associate with comics: I liked superheroes (Batman: The Animated Series was a favorite), science fiction, fantasy (the Conan movies were favorites), and various other things in "nerd" culture (I played roleplaying games, loved the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and hung out in an arcade with my older brother). Now, of course, liking these things doesn't necessarily translate into liking comic books, but in my case, I did like comics (see Calvin & Hobbes above) but I never really knew about the larger comic book culture; I had never been to a comic book store, didn't even know if there was one in my town, and so I never really had a chance to become a hardcore comics reader.

Short Anecdote: About 6 or 7 years ago, I thought I'd try to get into comic books, so I went to the only comic book shop I knew about in my area and started browsing. I was unbelievably self-conscious, had no idea even where to start looking, and the guy at the counter was involved in a very animated conversation with a customer about something I couldn't understand at all (whether they were talking about comics or indie rock, I don't think I'll ever know). Once the customer left, my first thought was to ask the clerk what he recommended, but shyness and fear of embarrassment prevented me. I wandered around a few minutes more, growing unbelievably uncomfortable (the silence in the place was deafening), and finally grabbed a Powerpuff Girls comic, payed without a word, and left, pretty much convinced I would never go back. At that time, the world of comics seemed completely inaccessable to me.

I've got a feeling my first comics shop experience was so dreadful because of a strange mix of two things: I was embarrassed to be in a comic book store in the first place (what if someone I knew saw me go in there?!), and at the same time, I felt like a poser, trying to pass myself off as someone who knew what she was doing, but who really hadn't the slightest clue what was a good comic to buy. I felt like I was too cool and not cool enough both at the same time. The store I go to now has a fantastic clerk, who is super-friendly, makes great recommendations, and is genuinly eager to make customers feel welcome, and even though it was my own insecurity that hampered that first experience, I'm wondering if, had the guy at the counter been more helpful, I might have gotten into comics that day 6 or 7 years ago.

More, on how I finally did start reading comics, and why comics are still pretty scary for the uninitiated, to follow. . .

2005-06-26T14:19:00.000-04:00

"An unliterary man may be defined as one who reads books once only. There is hope for a man who has never read Malory or Boswell of Tristram Shandy or Shakespeare's Sonnets: but what can you do with a man who says he 'has read' them, meaning he has read them once, and thinks this settles the matter?"
-- C.S. Lewis, "On Stories"

"But who will write us a riding song. . .

2005-06-24T18:07:00.000-04:00

Or a fighting song or a drinking song,
Fit for the fathers of you and me,
That knew how to think and thrive?
But the song of Beauty and Art and Love
Is simply an utterly stinking song,
To double you up and drag you down,
And damn your soul alive."
-- The Flying Inn, p. 71

Thought I'd give this blogging thing another try, 'cause I'm nothing if not dogged (snerk). I figured I'd explain the name and why I chose it (to all my numerous fans), and marvel at how Chesterton continues to have his pen on the pulse of modernity even nearly 100 years later.

The Flying Inn is one of Chesterton's novels, and I decided to read it basically because I loved the idea of a traveling pub rambling through the countryside trying to escape the nefarious forces of prohibition. They've got a wooden sign, a barrrel of rum, and a wedge of cheese -- how could I not read this book?!

Well, it turns out The Flying Inn is also about the growing fascination with, in England and elsewhere, non-European religion and philosophy in the West, and how this is a bad thing. About abandoning our culture for a foreign culture that is really not all that better than our own. It's about England, and the English, and how English and Western culture should be praised and celebrated, repeatedly, in song. Not to mention, the novel deals with the ridiculousness of things like Prohibition, Vegetarianism (unless, of course, like Patrick Dalroy and myself, you mean vegetables that have been liquified and fermented, and add fun to a party), and Diplomats. Never enough ridiculing of diplomats found in literature in my opinion.

Of course, the inferiority complex the West has about her own culture is not the main thrust of this blog (as my very first post ever *below* will reveal), but it's not a bad topic to bring up once in awhile (and I just might). But I didn't pick the name of The Flying Inn for my blog because of the book's thematic content.

Why, then, The Flying Inn? Well, since most of my posts will probably be semi-incoherent anyway, why not name it after a pub, right? Mostly though, I liked the idea of being "on the run," unable to stay in one place too long else the authorities catch you, always popping up to cause trouble or merriment or an epic battle, whatever the need may be. No need to worry though, my blog will probably never be as cool as I just made it sound in the last sentence.

So, this is The Flying Inn, and it will cover many topics, flying from one to the other without warning. Hopefully someone, somewhere will share a bit of my wedge of cheese and enjoy it.

2005-06-24T17:12:00.000-04:00

Well. That didn't work out the way I wanted, did it. Well-played Spurs, and good job Timmy (though you are no longer my pretend basketball boyfriend -- some things cannot stand the test of losing the NBA championship). I love my 'Stons though, they played so hard, and I've got a pretty good feeling I'll be watching basketball into June next year. . .

De-troit Basket-ball!

2005-06-23T17:11:00.000-04:00

Game seven tonight. Go Pistons!!!

Tolkien Wednesday

2004-09-08T14:19:00.000-04:00

"I read quite a lot--or more truly, try to read many books (notably so-called Science Fiction and Fantasy). But I seldom find any modern books that hold my attention."
-J.R.R. Tolkien in a letter to Charlotte and Denis Plimmer - February 8, 1967

Hey Kids! New Blog!!!

2004-09-07T14:58:00.000-04:00

Catholicism, Literature, Comics, Movies, Television, Politics, Conservatism, Any Darn Thing I Want, etc.

Just another voice in the cacophony, a 20-something with too much time on her hands. A blog?

Seemed like a good idea at the time.

Valete!