Thursday, July 29, 2010

Dress Your Family in Corduroy and Denim

I normally would have taken another picture since I have a kind of meh expression on my face, but I decided it pretty accurately reflected how I ended up feeling about this outfit. 



Originally, I wanted to wear these cords since it was cloudy and autumnal when I was getting ready, but being July a cardigan would have been a bit to much, too heavy, especially since the weather soon turned bright and sunny. But the lightness of the material in the blouse ended up contradicting the heaviness of the pants, and the  primary tone of the blue was a bit off compared to the earth toned light brown/tan. Next time I might try a t-shirt (not tucked in) or stick with the cardigans and save the corduroy thing for colder seasons. Stay tuned, this is riveting stuff.

P.S. I am an excellent speller, but "corduroy" gave me a minor fit. The first two times I wrote it, I wasn't even close enough for spell check to know what I meant.

Totally Unrelated

1. My favorite blog, mental floss, had a link to an article about microexpressions. That article had a link to a test which is supposed to tell you how good you are at reading quick, involuntary facial expressions that give away a person's emotions. It does do that, but it also has the added bonus of being unintentionally creepy. Try it out for yourself here.

2. The Daily What posted this really awesome nerdy bookmark (given away at Urban Outfitters stores) a few days ago. Want.

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

Those Sandals. That Pose.

1.I just pulled these sandals out of an "extra shoes" tub under my bed, and have been wearing them a lot.







2. I noticed I do this pose a lot when Joe is taking my picture. Hands in pockets or out. Actually, I do this pose a lot in general for outfit pictures. I feel a little silly doing the "staring into space" thing, so I end up just looking at the camera.

A Heavy Book Review

I think this year I have read the least amount of books since I graduated high school. Somehow I started out slowly and never quite picked up steam in the reading department. Lately, though, I have begun to return to my former glory.
Seriously, I can't stop wearing these shorts. And now back to what I was saying.
I have been tearing my way through books lately, at least in the sense that I've read about as much in the last month as I have the rest of the year combined. I think a lot of it comes from nice weather that beckons me out with a cold drink, a good book, and a heavy dousing in spray sunscreen. And the rest of it from Joe's recent interest in reading, something he's never much been into, and especially not in the year and a half we've been together. Since we live in separate towns at the moment, when we're together I feel kind of guilty reading if he's around, so usually we would end up watching movies or TV or hanging out with friends. But now that he's started reading, we can do it together. It's nice, actually, since reading is a great interest of mine, and it's nice to share it.

Anyway, in the past couple of months I've made it through the first four books in the Percy Jackson series,  The Imperfectionists by Tom Rachman, Sh*t My Dad Says by Justin Halpern, and The Things They Carried by Tim O'Brien. I've had a rather good run of luck, and have enjoyed them all in different ways.

Just yesterday I finished Although of Course You End Up Becoming Yourself: A Road Trip With David Foster Wallace by David Lipsky, the same man who wrote a lovely memorial article about Wallace for Rolling Stone after his suicide in 2008. The article referenced material that would become Although, gathered by Lipsky during a few days the men spent together at the end of Wallace's book tour for Infinite Jest in 1996. Lipsky was gathering material for an article that, at the time, didn't surface. But after Wallace's death, Lipsky revisited the interviews and tapes and decided to release the transcripts. The result is a fascinating, difficult, heartbreaking picture of a man called by many a genius.

Wallace's death, of course, biases any reading of Although hopelessly. As Lipsky says in his afterword, "Suicide is such a powerful end, it reaches back and scrambles the beginning." To hear Wallace hope for marriage, children, speak of himself as an old man, speculate about his future, and recount his past brush with being on suicide watch, culls a painful resonance in the heart of the reader, as one empowered with Cassandra-like vision of his grim future. Wallace's thoughts, as recorded by Lipsky, are so sharply observant beyond the capacity of the average person as to make his "normal" utterances (jokes, contradictions, fumblings to find the right word, the time he mistakenly refers to Gwenyth Paltrow as Blythe Danner when discussing Seven) seem an endearing treat, a conspiratorial gift that reassures us that he's still only human. And to read this book, more than anything, was for me a validation that Wallace's suicide was in no way romantic, or inevitable. This man, David, was not and Author, a Writer, a Genius. He was a guy whose need to write led to a lot of good things, and a lot of hard times, and caused a lot of trouble in his life. 

I've never been much of a fan of Wallace's fiction, though granted I have only read Girl With The Curious Hair. But his nonfiction has always astonished me. He mines his subjects with such relentless abandon, the final product is simultaneously full and empty of him. I read his essay about about David Lynch without having seen a single thing he directed, of John McCain's presidential campaign though I hate politics, of the porn industry's equivalent to the Oscars. Tennis, lobsters, cruise ships...anything seemingly mundane or beyond my scope of interests became fascinating in his hands. So while most of the conversation in Although revolves around Wallace's best-known work, the 1,000 plus page novel Infinite Jest which I have never read, I breezed through Although in just a few days. And now, of course, my curiosity is strong, and while I've contemplated reading Infinite Jest before, I have never been able to bring myself to do it.

So what should have been an interview about a book became a book about a man and his book, but of course about everything else as well. Thankfully, Lipsky gives us a transcript of the vivid, vital man that Wallace once was, before he went of his medication for depression in search for something better, before the doctors failed to find something, before he tried to go back on the original medication and found it no longer worked, before he (as his mother imagines) kissed his dogs and told them he was sorry and was gone.

Although, of course, he never quite got to finish becoming himself.

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

Inception vs Mega Shark vs Giant Octopus

Yesterday, I went to see Inception. But to avoid spoilers or black holes of speculation as to what it meant (I have a theory, but it's rather incomplete), I'd rather talk about another movie I saw recently. It is called Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus.

Ignore the pizza stain on my lapel, and read about
a cinematic materpiece


First of all, let's get one thing clear. It's a giant OCTOPUS, not a squid. That was mentioned at least twice in the film, and is apparently of great import. To be honest, I was watching it with about five other people, and we only paid attention to stuff like when the shark jumped out of the sea to eat a plane out of the sky. Which begs the question....why is it eating a flying object anyway? As far as I know, normal sharks don't eat birds. I mean, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, it's not like I'm a shark expert or anything. But I'm pretty sure that's not Standard Operating Procedure. So why would a giant shark try to eat what it could only perceive to be a sort of giant bird? Can't it find, like, a whale to munch on?

Of course, the main reason to watch Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus is to see the two creatures engage in a thrilling battle to the death. Unfortunately, they spent most of the movie far apart from each other, barely interacting. And then, when the inevitable face-off ensued, the really horrendous CGI (which contributes to much of the movie's charm and mockability) left me feeling cheated. At best, it looked a bit like they were trying to make hybrid baby sea creatures, not ruthlessly annihilate and destroy each other. 

I guess that explains the new Syfy movie coming out: Sharktopus. Yes, it's real. (Well, not the sharktopus, but the movie.


Saturday, July 17, 2010

Cryptomnesia

The other day at work, I was checking in books and I came across this book, published in 2006 by Random House.




Then, whist perusing Amazon's book blog Omnivoracious the same day, I noticed a book that had just been published last month by Viking:

Okay, so the fonts are different sizes, and the author and title order are switched around, but still, there are major similarities. Especially the use of italics underneath the picture. 

Is it just me? 

UPDATE:

Random House, 2002


This is getting ridiculous.