poll results pt 2

so, all of my four really really cool readers voted the same as i would've on the high fidelity-type poll (post about it here), namely that it's a tie. both what you are like and what you like matters. some things are sacred. great minds think alike.

most importantly, no one thought i was a confused pop culture dork. that's a good thing. it means my readers are confused pop culture dorks as well. the very best kind might i add.

what matters?

one of my all-time favorite novels is high fidelity by nick hornby. the movie is also awesome. i love the novel for several reasons.

first of all i really like the language, and the tone of it. the flow of it is fantastic. you're really there, you can see the racks of records you want to go through so badly, and the awkwardness gets under your skin.

second of all, i really dig the characters. they are really real, like it says on the back of the penguin edition "oh god, i know people just like that!", we really do. rob becomes your best buddy, or worst, and you fall in love with him, or with dick. barry is.. well, he's jack black, essentially, which is one reason the movie version works so well.

third, it really appeals to the geek in me; top ten lists, obscure musical facts, pop-cultural references, anal filing systems, obsessive behavior, the focus on mixed tapes.

at one place in the book (p.91) rob ponders on something he's been talking to the others about in relation to his underlying women problem, namely what really matters, what you like or what you are like, and says that

"..the truth was that these things matter, and it's no good pretending that any relationship has a future if your record collections disagree violently, or if your favorite films wouldn't even speak to each other if they met at a party."

those of you who's read the book or watched the movie knows what it eventually resolves to, but whatever that is i still think this is an interesting dilemma, cos even though it's superficial and even mis-guiding to judge people on what they like, it does, after all, matter. at least to me. certainly not as much as it does to barry with his questionnaire, but still.

however, there are morons with impeccable taste, just like there are awesome persons without taste (i call them radio listeners). i think it matters what people are like, but generally i do prefer them to have good taste.

that's what i think. what do you think? i put the poll to the right up just to find out, so please click it. thanks.

oh, and for the love of god, if you haven't read the book, make sure you do that first, but fast, you only have a week before my poll closes.

brave old world

poll closed. here's making sure the world never forgets;

(as for the two of you who haven't read it yet. READ IT! there.)
1 vote for "it's brilliant!"
1 vote for "well, the plot is dull but the idea is awesome!"
1 vote for "he needs to work on his characters that huxley."
1 vote for "it's ok"

no one thought it sucked. thanks, readers.

adding to that, i actually found another old short review i wrote just after finishing reading this book. i don't think i've written any more, so this is the last. dated february 2006.

i finished reading huxley's brave new world and i must say i'm kind of disappointed. after all, it's supposed to be a classic. (if you haven't read the book, maybe you should stop reading this post now.)

while i think the background is really good; the descriptions of society, all the details, and the whole idea that's, imho, very thought-out; the actual story is un-interesting and the characters flat. it feels as if novel was the wrong form for huxley's ideas. first, the only interesting parts of the actual story is the societal descriptions and some of the long conversations between some of the characters. the rest is a series of un-interesting drama without much empathy and situations that are strained to produce dialogue; interesting for the most part, but weird. as for the characters i find them very rigid and stereotypical. the thinkers, and also most of the people in respected positions, are (obviously) men, and the women characters are, despite the accepted promiscuity in both genders, the "every one belongs to every one else" slogan and the lack of domestic situations, still made out to be more sensitive, stupider and more suppressed than the men, even in the civilized world. also all the interesting conversations were carried out by men. (why is it so common btw, in dystopias, that even though the writers create a new, different society, women are still suppressed? doesn't imagination cover women? even orwell, who i love, describe women in an objectifying way.) i don't care that it was written in the 30s or earlier; i have to ask more of an obviously talented thinker.

i can clearly see why this is an important book, but having said that it feels as if huxley didn't know how to present his really good idea so he made up a story and a few characters to carry it, and failed. unfortunately. i had high expectations on the novel, so maybe that's why i'm disappointed.

the brave new world

so, you might have heard that ridley scott is interested in doing a movie of huxley's brave new world. ridley, the old man - a sir now apparently, who has produced and directed two of my favorite movies, blade runner and alien, and several other quite good ones - thelma & louise, 1492. i know, that was years ago, but still, couldn't be too bad, could it?

i wrote a piece here on what i think of the novel in question and since it came up again, i'm curious, how do you, my readers, feel about it? so i put up a poll here to the right. please click! thanks.