Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell, by Susanna Clarke

I’m fairly unemotional and not easily moved, but Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell is one of those rare books that has captured my heart and managed to claim a high spot in my favourites list, alongside The Time Traveler’s Wife*, Les Misérables and Animal Farm.

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.

—-

* Co-incidentally, the edition I have includes an introduction by Audrey Niffenegger

Buy Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell, by Susanna Clarke

The write way to blog

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”.

Other blogs have purpose, stated or not, such as Lea Thinks Aloud which focuses mainly on book and movie reviews, or my other blog THRIFTerrific where I’m trying to concentrate on sharing tips to help people save time and money.

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.

—-

* SEO fans, see what I did there?

Review: Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog

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.

IMDB link | Buy DVD from Amazon |

Don’t talk to me, I’m just a computer

As a bit of a technology freak, I’m one of those people that just can’t help laughing whenever a movie uses computers in a way that is patently ridiculous – think of how many scenes you’ve seen like this one: where the detective asks the forensics boffin to “zoom in on that photo. No, more. More. Pan up a bit. Enhance three-thousand percent. Ah hah! That’s the image of the murderer right there, in the mirror’s reflection of the shine from the nail-polish on the victim’s left big toe!”

Another personal bugbear is how many writers and directors seem to think that the computers of the (near) future will be controlled by talking to them. It probably taps into a basic human desire; voice recognition is a technology that mimics how we communicate with each other, i.e. using spoken language, so that’s what we want our computers to do. In spite of that, I believe speech-control will be a niche at best and not the next major epoch of human-computer interaction, and that the only viable advancement in human-computer interface is mind-control.

Why? Imagine a classroom full of students chatting to their computers. It’s bad enough that in a typical lecture theatre today, the scritch-scratching of pens, and more recently the tap-tapping of keyboards, is a constant source of annoyance. If we had to take notes verbally, the lecturer or teacher would never be able to get a word in. Or imagine your office if your colleagues (especially that man or woman with the Really Annoying Voice) use voice dictation to compose e-mails. It’d be like working in a call centre in Bangalore – with just as little privacy. The majority of ways in which we use computers today are not socially compatible with voice control – it’s that simple.

But before we get to mind-control, what other types of human-computer interface can we consider?

• Handwriting-recognition: handwriting is an archaic method of transcribing thoughts and ideas onto a physical medium. Evidentially, most people I know can type faster than they can write – nobody I know could crank out a lazy 60 words-per-minute using a pen and paper, let alone the crazy speeds that some of the technology-savvy are capable of (I clock in variously at somewhere between 80-90wpm). With the ubiquity of computers, there is no question that handwriting-recognition is more of a bridge from the past to the present, than a viable technology for the future.
• Gesture-recognition tools currently available on the market can detect points in 2D space, e.g. drawing symbols with your mouse like in the Opera Web browser, or with your fingers like multi-touch on the iPhone. Once the technology evolves, it will allow us to make symbols with either our hands or other input devices in 3D space, which the computer can then interpret, like deaf-sign language. But I think this is an ergonomically bankrupt idea because it requires people to learn a new meta-language. I have enough “Learn how to speak French/Japanese/Chinese” books lying around the house to support my idea that companies will have a difficult time convincing people to learn a new language to talk to computers, when I haven’t made any inroads to learning ones that allow me to communicate with my fellow man.
• Today’s concept of virtual reality conjures up images of people in full-body suits full of sensors. It’s hilarious to think that you affect movement in a virtual world by replicating real-world movements – picture a room full of people wearing goggles bumping into each other, as well as the walls, and you’ll see how ludicrous this idea is. Lawnmower Man and The Matrix both got it right. Tron – if I remember correctly – did not.

If you think that controlling technology with your mind is far-fetched, then consider this: the science is already quite far along, and there are already applications such as allowing disabled people to control prosthetic limbs.

The potential for using technology to overcome our physical limitations is huge – imagine if the computer can take that tune you dreamed up and turn that into a score without having to know the first thing about musical notation. We will be able to do business at the speed of thought (credit for that phrase goes to Bill Gates). Your next Wii or PlayStation might not even need controllers – you play purely through the power of your mind!

Now that’s something to think about.

A chance encounter

A poem inspired by the title of a painting (pictured, right) by my very talented young friend Lingsi. The piece won the “painting” category in the Imagine ’05 competition. The poem is dedicated to my wife, Jenny.

—-

While watching workers passing by,
I saw a man without a tie.
“What right have you sir, if I may,
To be so naked in this way?

“Wherefore do you smile and grin,
So gay of step and high of chin.
When others ’round you, drab and grey,
Look down upon you in dismay?”

Accosted thus, he raised his palm,
Responding with a gentle calm:
“I’m sorry that my dress offends,
But what care I for fashion trends?

“My countenance displays to you
Most truthfully my every mood.
It speaks more than a tie could do,
Regardless of the stripe or hue.”

“But kind sir,” I interject,
“Have you so little self-respect?
So candidly you bare your heart,
And make known all your inner parts.

“Oh, that I could be blasé,
If all my thoughts were on display;
Won’t letting others see your mind,
Give rein for them to be unkind?”

“Answers I have few, dear miss,
But as you fret just ponder this:
I have faith in God above,
And put my hope in truth and love.

“Where I go, I do not dread,
I trust the ground on which I tread.
And whom I meet I will not hate;
Why more enmity create?”

I weighed his words and found them just,
His earnestness I longed to trust.
We spoke ’til late into the night,
Of many things both grave and light.

Then I: “‘fore day’s first rays are cast,
Please let me tell you of my past.
This hatred self so full of sin,
That joy stays out and pain stays in.

“How could you love one such as me?
Quite crazy you would have to be,
That you would know my deepest shame,
Still from my eyes each teardrop claim.”

He: “Let your eye be unimpaired,
Remain courageous, don’t be scared.
Let not your handsome face be marred,
No matter how your heart is scarred.

“I see why you your past disdain,
But count it not on you a stain.
Let sunlight pierce your clouded soul,
And take back what the darkness stole.”

Seeing the candour in his eyes,
I finally purged my own disguise.
And in my nakedness I saw,
That which I’d missed the day before.

No more ties or skirts or shoes,
Not greens nor greys nor browns nor blues.
Just various people black and white,
Trying to tell what’s wrong from right.

Then he took my hand in his,
And softly in my ear he said:
“Let your heart and mind be free,
And meet me in my reverie.”