What is it about rhyme and rhythm which makes it stick in our minds so much more than poetry that doesn't? Maybe the human mind is nothing if not a glorified pattern matching machine...
Here's an as-yet-untitled poem from my archives, that doesn't rhyme:
What is this thing in my mind That permeates all my thoughts?
What is this thing in my heart That makes it hurt when you're not around?
What is this thing in my eye That sparkles when I'm looking at you?
What is this thing in my soul That rips open my emotions and betrays them to you?
I, Robot, by Isaac Asimov Posted by Caesar at 8:08 AM
As somebody that saw the movie before reading the book, it came as a bit of a shock to find that the two have very little in common with each other - the movie seems to be mostly new material. But in a strange way, it is very much in keeping with the spirit of Asimov's work, which is a collection of short stories exploring the philosophical implications of The 3 Laws of Robotics:
A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
A robot must obey any orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
The book is a series of short stories, loosely connected by a plot (if you could call it that) involving the character of Dr. Susan Calvin, who does not appear as a character in the short stories until about a third of the way in.
Dr. Calvin's passion is robots, and she cares about them much more than she cares for humans. I wonder if Asimov's personality was similar to Dr. Calvin's, because he describes robots with greater attention and more passion than he does his human characters. This could have been a failing, but the strength of the book lies in the sheer inventiveness of the philosophy and the scenarios which Asimov creates to present them, without which he could very easily be just another sci-fi hack who uses lots of techno-babble to confound the reader.
So, back to the movie, it's a telling sign of the strength of the idea that Asimov came up with, and the brilliance in the way that he communicated it, that the writers for the movie were able to come up with something original and yet so faithful to source material.
One other thing that the book shows is that it's possible to write a larger work by writing several smaller and loosely related works, then tying them together with a narrative later on.
Verdict: not one of my favourites, but compelling argument that the strength of idea can help an author rise above mediocrity.
You may be wondering why I'm suddenly doing book reviews.
I'm sure that an important part of the writing process is reading, and seeing how other authors write, so my reviews will always have a slightly "authorly" bent to them, with an aim of looking at the writing styles and the motivations of the author. With any luck this will help me, and hopefully you as well, to discover what it takes to be a successful writer.
Susanna Clarke is the best bits of authors such as Tolkien, Pratchett, Austen, Gaiman and Rowling all rolled into one - a kind of book geek's dream team. Her writing style is amazingly lucid and eclectic in the best possible way. As I was reading the book the images flowed so clearly in my mind that I said to Jenny last night "if they ever make a movie out of this, I'm going to die". Well sound the bells, because I discovered this morning that the movie is scheduled for release in 2010. Every aspect of her writing, from the use of archaic spelling to the thoroughly well-researched depictions of the Napoleanic Wars, is deeply imbued with style and gravitas.
Set in a version of 19th Century England where magic was once prevalent but has subsided with the disappearance of the Raven King, the story revolves around the two eponymous magicians, Norrell and Strange. Norrell is a bookish control freak, obsessed with trying to revive English magic through academic study, whereas Strange is a talented natural magician driven by Norrell's monopoly on the library of magic books into learning through doing. Working against them both is a malevolent fairy whom Norrell summons during a spell that he casts in a desperate attempt to win influence from the political sphere.
These characters, plus a wonderful supporting cast, all have a rich humanity about them which complements the plot without resorting to stereotypes, and each is attended by an equal measure of success and failure as befits their personalities. Especially sweet is the relationship between Strange and his wife, Arabella.
There are so many more positive things that I could write about this book, but if there is any one criticism that I could make, it is that I wish Clarke or her editor had exercised greater restraint when it came to the liberal use of footnotes. Quite often one will find themselves reading a long, rambling side story footnote which, while intending to enrich the context of the events that are occurring, ends up distracting the reader by breaking the flow of the narrative. Tolkien at least had the courtesy of putting all of his "additional material" into an appendix, and Rowling didn't bother publishing any of it at all.
Overall, this is a stunning debut novel, and I couldn't recommend it any more highly.
What is a blog good for, really? It might be to share one's thoughts with the world, but that requires somebody to actually read it. The only reason people even visit to this blog any more is to see pictures of Lara Croft*.
Many blogs are successful because they manifest the outgoing, sociable or sanguine nature of the blogger, and their success in the virtual world reflects their success in the real one. I'm obviously not one of those people - I use words like "manifest".
But cyberseraphic (as a blog) is more than 5 years old now, and it has become a cumbersome ship to steer. Nevertheless, I will persevere. My recent accomplishment in successfully completing "A chance encounter" was a very fulfilling experience in spite of the very long gestation period and the anguish suffered during the writing process, and so in this next season of my blog I'm going to focus on more creative writing (and probably the occasional post bitching about the writing process).
Hopefully, in several years' time when I've achieved my goal of writing for a living, I'll look back fondly on this post as the turning point.
Review: Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog Posted by Caesar at 3:07 PM
First things first: don't buy the hype. The concept behind Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog is not original (it's an idea recycled from one of Director Joss Whedon's Buffy episodes) and neither is the story (it's an almost shameless rip-off of Austin Grossman's "Soon I Will be Invincible"). It's also important to keep in mind that its creators cobbled this together while trying to work around the writers' strike, that the cast and crew worked gratis, and that Whedon funded it from his own pocket to the tune of more than US$200,000. Sounds like a disaster, right? So why is it so bloomin' popular, and why haven't you heard of it until now?
I came across this after geek hangouts all over the Internet went ballistic over a surprise guest appearance by Felicia Day, singing "Still Alive" alongside Jonathan Coulton at the Penny Arcade Expo. I had no idea who she was or why she was so popular with the fans (other than that she's a girl) so I looked her up, and that's when I came across Horrible. It had an impeccable geek pedigree thanks to Whedon, famous predominantly for his work on the Buffy and Firefly TV series, but it also held great promise because of the incredible kitsch potential of its lead, former Doogie Howser M.D. star, Neil Patrick Harris.
He doesn't disappoint. Harris delivers a pitch perfect Dr. Horrible, with just the right amount of camp to endear us to the character, and his lovelorn alter-ego, Billy. He carries the whole show, delivering a wide-ranging performance that runs the gamut of musical genres from broadway musical to metal/rock. As for the other characters, I thought Captain Hammer (Firefly's Nathan Fillion) was a bit too over the top, and Day puts in a reasonably sweet turn as Penny, the love interest.
The dialogue and lyrics are very clever, but it helps if you know a bit of geek. Characters casually drop phrases like "B.T.W." which would probably go over your head if you haven't spent the requisite amount of time on Internet chats or discussion forums.
The show is split into three acts, with the first definitely being the strongest of the three especially if like me, you're not very knowledgeable of the Buffy universe. Apparently the cameos are plenty, with various Buffy writers, and even Buffy herself, Sarah Michelle Gellar, appearing in the final act. It's pretty short, with each episode clocking in at under 15 minutes, but forty-five minutes is probably about as much of this style as I could tolerate anyway. So while it's somewhat disappointing when it ends, I still felt satisfied. It was nothing more than the briefest glimpse into the character; any more and it would be too much of a good thing.
"). It's also important to keep in mind that its creators cobbled this together while trying to work around the 
| 