lookingland (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
lookingland) wrote2007-08-26 04:15 pm
lookingland) wrote2007-08-26 04:15 pm
Entry tags:
sundry sunday stuff ~
in writing: i'm doing that whole thinking thing again. feeling rudderless and flustered and annoyed with myself. In Pursuance of Said Conspiracy is fine. i've been distant with it lately, but i'll go back to hammering it out when i've recovered from the reading. it's the rest of my "life's work" that is disastrously on the edge.
i've been browsing some sites on the subject of the object of my affection (i.e. literature of the Civil War), namely: this site by tim morris, which is a growing list of books (missing quite a bit yet, in my opinion), and this site by craig a. warren, which talks a lot about america's preoccupation with the civil war (for those who are in fact, preoccupied), and touches on themes and issues brought up by the literature.
i won't go into a long deconstruction here, but the short of it is, i remain disturbed by the fact that nothing feels authentic or complete about my own work ~ a fact that has always bothered me all my live long days. i'd settle for originality, but From Slaughter's Mountain has never been original: boy runs away from home and enlists contrary to good sense, discovers he's really good at killing people, then realizes it's not a career that's going to get him anywhere and that he's taken a lot of bad turns on account of just being stubborn and self-destructive, so he decides to go home and try to start over (which we later see doesn't happen so easily).
it's all pretty cliché, really. the two things that stand out as not-terribly-ordinary in this genre are the rape (which is really what the book's about in a lot of ways), and morse being, well, morse (which i don't think ever really gets paid off ~ morse concedes to lewis's wishes to leave richmond and never come back, accepting an unjust banishment when he's the person who could heal everything).
intellectually, it was my way of showing morse accept that he can't fix or change the will of God, but i've always had problems with the true extent of morse's power and his ability/willingness to exercise it. he never saves anyone in battle, for example. he never even tries. but it's possible that he saves lewis at gettysburg (i don't know, i'm still exploring this).
what happens then is that lewis becomes morse's shambling half-living creature and morse becomes doctor frankenstein. lewis is alive because morse defied God. i don't really know what this means for either of them except that morse continues to defy God for lewis's sake up until lewis finally tells him: you know what? cut it out. i've lived enough to know how wrong i was to want to die. so let me die. and morse tells him to go far far away because he can't watch it happen, and lewis obliges him on the pretext of traveling to a warmer, drier climate to expire in peace.
and what has been morse's motivation all these years? to get lewis to forgive linwood brown?
there very possibly is an original story here, gacking under layers of hoodoo:
and that's about as far as i can think ahead about all of this right now.
in reading: for the![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
50bookchallenge:
in film: lastly, i watched Seraphim Falls last night.
[some spoilers in this review!]
liam neeson chases pierce brosnan down out of the mountains into an appalling desert, torturing him along the way. yeah, fun stuff! but i could watch either actor skin cats and prolly still be entertained. the ending got a wee convoluted and i don't know how i feel about the resolution, but i was still entertained. it's a pretty straightforward story about vengeance and forgiveness, but could have been helped with a wee better development of the characters. i kept wondering through most of the film: why does pierce brosnan's character keep running? what does he want to live for? that question never gets answered (in fact, it gets compounded when we find out that he lost both of his sons right before his eyes fighting at antietam).
so all in all i enjoyed it (especially the fact of so many horses dropping dead from the chase ~ not because the horses die, but because for once we get some realism: horses aren't machines; they need water and food and rest!), but overall, if it had been a book before being made into a film, the book woulda prolly been much better. the cause of animosity between the two men is obvious (i think) at the start, but when the flashback moment is revealed, it was still effectively chilling, brosnan's line: you said the house was empty! and the soldier answering: of rebs! ~ geh! quite horrifying, regardless of the cliché. and i love the impression the director gives of brosnan leaving the farm, taking off his sword, and basically walking out of the war and of that former life forever. i wish the symbol of the knife he carries ever afterward had been more clearly explained, however. i feel there was a missed opportunity there.
the usually suave pierce brosnan
takes quite a relentless beating in this one.
i've been browsing some sites on the subject of the object of my affection (i.e. literature of the Civil War), namely: this site by tim morris, which is a growing list of books (missing quite a bit yet, in my opinion), and this site by craig a. warren, which talks a lot about america's preoccupation with the civil war (for those who are in fact, preoccupied), and touches on themes and issues brought up by the literature.
i won't go into a long deconstruction here, but the short of it is, i remain disturbed by the fact that nothing feels authentic or complete about my own work ~ a fact that has always bothered me all my live long days. i'd settle for originality, but From Slaughter's Mountain has never been original: boy runs away from home and enlists contrary to good sense, discovers he's really good at killing people, then realizes it's not a career that's going to get him anywhere and that he's taken a lot of bad turns on account of just being stubborn and self-destructive, so he decides to go home and try to start over (which we later see doesn't happen so easily).
it's all pretty cliché, really. the two things that stand out as not-terribly-ordinary in this genre are the rape (which is really what the book's about in a lot of ways), and morse being, well, morse (which i don't think ever really gets paid off ~ morse concedes to lewis's wishes to leave richmond and never come back, accepting an unjust banishment when he's the person who could heal everything).
intellectually, it was my way of showing morse accept that he can't fix or change the will of God, but i've always had problems with the true extent of morse's power and his ability/willingness to exercise it. he never saves anyone in battle, for example. he never even tries. but it's possible that he saves lewis at gettysburg (i don't know, i'm still exploring this).
what happens then is that lewis becomes morse's shambling half-living creature and morse becomes doctor frankenstein. lewis is alive because morse defied God. i don't really know what this means for either of them except that morse continues to defy God for lewis's sake up until lewis finally tells him: you know what? cut it out. i've lived enough to know how wrong i was to want to die. so let me die. and morse tells him to go far far away because he can't watch it happen, and lewis obliges him on the pretext of traveling to a warmer, drier climate to expire in peace.
and what has been morse's motivation all these years? to get lewis to forgive linwood brown?
there very possibly is an original story here, gacking under layers of hoodoo:
an angel meddles with humans in a hospital where they reconstruct broken bodies, trying to force a reconciliation between two boys who inadvertantly screwed up each other's lives 30 years ago during the war. peripherally it's also about the drosselmeyer who loves the boys like a father but won't admit it, and a nurse who is in love with a ghost who haunts them all.so i started thinking i should go back to Remember, Linwood Brown as a starting point.
and that's about as far as i can think ahead about all of this right now.
in reading: for the
50bookchallenge:no. 56 ~ A Diplomatic Adventure by s. weir mitchell. strictly an adventure story with some priceless amusements including a single case of mistaken identity that results in three duels (the character of Captain Merton is hilarious when he accepts the challenge even when he has no clue what's provoked it, and i love how he gives his enemies musketeer names). Merton's falling in love with a woman he's never seen is also wonderful, alongside his subsequent theft of a piece of ribbon (brilliant) that leads him to finally meet the mysterious spy (and marry her, of course). i love the fact that this romance happens entirely in Merton's head and then ultimately off-scene. the last chapter is throwaway recapitulation, but the rest of the book is highly entertaining. still not quite as good as New Samaria, which remains my favorite.i started Far in the Forest last night and only read a chapter. i really ought to take a break and read something else, though.
in film: lastly, i watched Seraphim Falls last night.
[some spoilers in this review!]
liam neeson chases pierce brosnan down out of the mountains into an appalling desert, torturing him along the way. yeah, fun stuff! but i could watch either actor skin cats and prolly still be entertained. the ending got a wee convoluted and i don't know how i feel about the resolution, but i was still entertained. it's a pretty straightforward story about vengeance and forgiveness, but could have been helped with a wee better development of the characters. i kept wondering through most of the film: why does pierce brosnan's character keep running? what does he want to live for? that question never gets answered (in fact, it gets compounded when we find out that he lost both of his sons right before his eyes fighting at antietam).
so all in all i enjoyed it (especially the fact of so many horses dropping dead from the chase ~ not because the horses die, but because for once we get some realism: horses aren't machines; they need water and food and rest!), but overall, if it had been a book before being made into a film, the book woulda prolly been much better. the cause of animosity between the two men is obvious (i think) at the start, but when the flashback moment is revealed, it was still effectively chilling, brosnan's line: you said the house was empty! and the soldier answering: of rebs! ~ geh! quite horrifying, regardless of the cliché. and i love the impression the director gives of brosnan leaving the farm, taking off his sword, and basically walking out of the war and of that former life forever. i wish the symbol of the knife he carries ever afterward had been more clearly explained, however. i feel there was a missed opportunity there.
the usually suave pierce brosnan
takes quite a relentless beating in this one.