There was a time when I was an early adopter when it came to technology. Or atleast an early adopter wannabe when I could not afford it. Use email! Use the latest and greatest technology! Use webcams! Use chat! And look at the older generation with sympathy when they couldnt use Outlook Express or a Mouse. Or even worse when they could not understand why a computer + the internet was so great.
Till it came to ebooks. Can't stand them. Only use them for technical books where the value of copy and paste overrules the distaste for ebooks. But fiction? No way. Kindle? Thats to be burnt. And now IPad and Digital Comics. So far there had never seemed to be a viable device for reading comics (and Im glad to see that some people still think that the IPad isn't it for comics yet) but the game seems to have changed with the new tablets. Print comics will die or atleast be ridiculously expensive. I just hope it will be after my time. I can't see the value of possessing a file - my comic has always been my copy and thus has value- Though this has taken aim at my philosophy of I'm a reader first, collector second and shot gaping holes through it. Lending a book still had value than copying a file. I suppose because while lent, you can't read the book. So valiantly I spend 70 bucks per weeks hoping that these contributions will keep the print industry in business just a little while longer, while knowing that the early adopters look at me with maybe a little sympathy, maybe a little frustration.
Showing posts with label Books. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Books. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Saturday, April 04, 2009
Who watches the watchmen
So I watched the movie, and even though it is a faithful reproduction of the book , it's nowhere near as great as the book. Also watched Hugh Laurie/Stephen Fry in Jeeves and Wooster which is also faithful and well enacted , but nowhere near as good as the P.G. Wodehouse book it has adapted and I wonder whats the difference?
And I guess, for me atleast , its because of the innate superiority of the book medium over the movie medium, which in no particular order are
1) You have to use your imagination. No matter how good a director or actor is, no matter how good the special effects are , your imagination can always beat them. And the visual drawn form will always be better than the real life actors. Ozymandias in the comics looked as he should. In the movie , he just looks weird/funny. They say in comics, whats not shown between the panels has to be as good as what is shown , because the reader fills in those gaps. However in a movie you are normally shown most of it. Some directors like Hitchcock excelled in what a good comic does so beautifully, what is not shown can be as terrifying or as beautiful as what is.
2) You can read at your own speed. You can read it again immediately, you can flip back anytime. Perhaps you can do this with a recorded movie but its not the same (and everyone knows to get the real experience , you have to go to a theatre). While reading watchmen , I had to pause and reread multiple pages. I didn't the significance of the Reverse symmetry chapter till I read the annotations online. I had to reread the Ozymandias dialog at the end. I had to reread the rorshachs origin. I had to reread Rorshachs death. Everytime I read a P.G. Wodehouse book, I would pause and laugh before continuing to read. Some of the scene descriptions are hilarious which are ofcourse absent from the serial.
3) Some books are serialized and continue for years, and are multilayered (like Sandman, Lucifer). While some movies can make the same claim , they rarely have the same scope. The multilayering aspect too is pretty much limited. TV series could have made the same claim , but there are precious few. Truthfully there are few books that do the above though.
And I guess, for me atleast , its because of the innate superiority of the book medium over the movie medium, which in no particular order are
1) You have to use your imagination. No matter how good a director or actor is, no matter how good the special effects are , your imagination can always beat them. And the visual drawn form will always be better than the real life actors. Ozymandias in the comics looked as he should. In the movie , he just looks weird/funny. They say in comics, whats not shown between the panels has to be as good as what is shown , because the reader fills in those gaps. However in a movie you are normally shown most of it. Some directors like Hitchcock excelled in what a good comic does so beautifully, what is not shown can be as terrifying or as beautiful as what is.
2) You can read at your own speed. You can read it again immediately, you can flip back anytime. Perhaps you can do this with a recorded movie but its not the same (and everyone knows to get the real experience , you have to go to a theatre). While reading watchmen , I had to pause and reread multiple pages. I didn't the significance of the Reverse symmetry chapter till I read the annotations online. I had to reread the Ozymandias dialog at the end. I had to reread the rorshachs origin. I had to reread Rorshachs death. Everytime I read a P.G. Wodehouse book, I would pause and laugh before continuing to read. Some of the scene descriptions are hilarious which are ofcourse absent from the serial.
3) Some books are serialized and continue for years, and are multilayered (like Sandman, Lucifer). While some movies can make the same claim , they rarely have the same scope. The multilayering aspect too is pretty much limited. TV series could have made the same claim , but there are precious few. Truthfully there are few books that do the above though.
Monday, February 16, 2009
100
(Not a sequel to Frank Miller's book)
And so a landmark post, which was meant to represent a new writing beginning. This blog originated as a way to write (based on Neil Gaiman's recommendation that the first thing any budding writer should do is actuall write) anything, so that I could see what I liked and disliked about my own writing. If I read the earlier posts , I find them much funnier than the latter ones (or atleast attempt to be funny). I see that most of time is spent writing about
a. Books especially Comics
b. Religion
c. Sports
d. Politics.
So a summary of what has been so far
Books! The only place where we get to see dialogue like
Monk : Seek not revenge, Seek the Buddha instead
Fox : the monk told me to seek the Buddha instead of vengeance
Dream King: That is good advice. Vengeance is a never ending path. And..?
Fox : I shall seek the Buddha....But first, I shall seek revenge!
And she does ofcourse.
Though in someways there are fewer good books and a lot more mediocre ones than what I remember. Perhaps I have read all the great ones already.
And there is no thrill of the hunt. When we had no money and had to raid the various raddi shops, a single book gave a lot of happiness (and rereads). But now when I can afford most books, the thrill of the search is gone , as are the rereads. There was a time I knew the number and cover of every comic I had, and now I cant remember which friend has my books.
But there is hope, I've introduced Lucifer to a new comics reader, which thrilled me.
Religion
I think the headline of my blog sums this up
while things that are uncomfortable, palpitating, and even gruesome, may make a good tale, and take a deal of telling anyway. J.R.R. Tolkien, The Hobbit
Ive often been asked (by the same person) why I dwell so much on religion if I dislike it so. And the answer has always been because it affects me!. And among the major problems faced by society , religion is probably in the top 10.
Perhaps the thing that irritates me the most about religion is the hypocrisy. (e.g. oh our religion teaches us to be humble, but you'll are all wrong only my religion is correct, or oh you need religion to tell you what is moral, you disbelievers are immoral, and the followers of my religion who are immoral, well they aren't real followers,or oh look at that religion , its so funny , how could people believe in something so stupid, oh my religion? all of the funny unbelievable things are miracles. or oh look at all the violent stuff in that religion? the violent stuff in my religion? thats only descriptive/thats a metaphor/ dont take everything literally or...) That was meant to be one example.
Its also that some conclusions are inescapable. If your religious God is Good(any commonly accepted definition of good), and is capable of making a difference or a change and chooses not to (and we know from all the religious tomes that he is capable of making differences) , then he can't be Good. Whenever Im told of how some God actually healed the sick, Im reminded of a comment, So you have this omnipotent God, who can cure, actually cure people with a touch but chooses to do so only to a select few people, how good could he be?
Any road (thanks Robbo) to conclude with an anecdote
When Captain Sullenberger was asked whether he prayed during the Hudson river landing,he said something to the effect of "I was busy taking care of the plane. I was pretty sure that the passengers were taking care of the praying."
Sports
Being in a country obsessed more with the show then with the sport and with one of the absolute worst sports in the history of mankind, has dampened the enthusiasm for sports. Oh for the days of watching cricket and a little english premier league football, some golf, some NBA, and look there's even a kabbadi match, some tennis, some hockey .. sigh.. Im down to why the heck does cricinfo not refresh faster! how about some AJAX,you useless developer!!!
Politics
The only thing that leaves a worse taste in your mouth than religion (hey we aren't discussing my cooking so it doesnt count). It's sad to see that American politicians are as bad and in some cases worse than their Indian counterparts. If I ever approve of the death penalty, it will be because some politician is on trial.
And so a landmark post, which was meant to represent a new writing beginning. This blog originated as a way to write (based on Neil Gaiman's recommendation that the first thing any budding writer should do is actuall write) anything, so that I could see what I liked and disliked about my own writing. If I read the earlier posts , I find them much funnier than the latter ones (or atleast attempt to be funny). I see that most of time is spent writing about
a. Books especially Comics
b. Religion
c. Sports
d. Politics.
So a summary of what has been so far
Books! The only place where we get to see dialogue like
Monk : Seek not revenge, Seek the Buddha instead
Fox : the monk told me to seek the Buddha instead of vengeance
Dream King: That is good advice. Vengeance is a never ending path. And..?
Fox : I shall seek the Buddha....But first, I shall seek revenge!
And she does ofcourse.
Though in someways there are fewer good books and a lot more mediocre ones than what I remember. Perhaps I have read all the great ones already.
And there is no thrill of the hunt. When we had no money and had to raid the various raddi shops, a single book gave a lot of happiness (and rereads). But now when I can afford most books, the thrill of the search is gone , as are the rereads. There was a time I knew the number and cover of every comic I had, and now I cant remember which friend has my books.
But there is hope, I've introduced Lucifer to a new comics reader, which thrilled me.
Religion
I think the headline of my blog sums this up
while things that are uncomfortable, palpitating, and even gruesome, may make a good tale, and take a deal of telling anyway. J.R.R. Tolkien, The Hobbit
Ive often been asked (by the same person) why I dwell so much on religion if I dislike it so. And the answer has always been because it affects me!. And among the major problems faced by society , religion is probably in the top 10.
Perhaps the thing that irritates me the most about religion is the hypocrisy. (e.g. oh our religion teaches us to be humble, but you'll are all wrong only my religion is correct, or oh you need religion to tell you what is moral, you disbelievers are immoral, and the followers of my religion who are immoral, well they aren't real followers,or oh look at that religion , its so funny , how could people believe in something so stupid, oh my religion? all of the funny unbelievable things are miracles. or oh look at all the violent stuff in that religion? the violent stuff in my religion? thats only descriptive/thats a metaphor/ dont take everything literally or...) That was meant to be one example.
Its also that some conclusions are inescapable. If your religious God is Good(any commonly accepted definition of good), and is capable of making a difference or a change and chooses not to (and we know from all the religious tomes that he is capable of making differences) , then he can't be Good. Whenever Im told of how some God actually healed the sick, Im reminded of a comment, So you have this omnipotent God, who can cure, actually cure people with a touch but chooses to do so only to a select few people, how good could he be?
Any road (thanks Robbo) to conclude with an anecdote
When Captain Sullenberger was asked whether he prayed during the Hudson river landing,he said something to the effect of "I was busy taking care of the plane. I was pretty sure that the passengers were taking care of the praying."
Sports
Being in a country obsessed more with the show then with the sport and with one of the absolute worst sports in the history of mankind, has dampened the enthusiasm for sports. Oh for the days of watching cricket and a little english premier league football, some golf, some NBA, and look there's even a kabbadi match, some tennis, some hockey .. sigh.. Im down to why the heck does cricinfo not refresh faster! how about some AJAX,you useless developer!!!
Politics
The only thing that leaves a worse taste in your mouth than religion (hey we aren't discussing my cooking so it doesnt count). It's sad to see that American politicians are as bad and in some cases worse than their Indian counterparts. If I ever approve of the death penalty, it will be because some politician is on trial.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
On writing
I finished reading Fables , The Good Prince and like all the fables volumes so far , what an amazing read. After reading the story about the tragic Christmas gift given to the Frog Prince, what a followup. The story has this underlying sorrow running through it, you know things are not going to end well, but there will be a brief period of sunshine and everything about this tale is done correctly , and that includes the ending as well. And it makes me think what makes a story great? Or rather what about a story's telling makes it great? If i look at frog prince lets see , A good guy's family is tragically killed and he embarks on a quest to make it right, his way (and no , fable's is not an Arnold Schwarzenegger movie). Seen this multiple times and in various ways, but fable's rises above all of them. I guess it is the ability of the writer to make us care about the characters. And I think the best guys are able to no matter what character they write. Bill Willingham did it in Fables. Mike Carey is another writer who was able to make the readers care about Lucifer , while not changing the character in any way at all. And Carey is able to do it , no matter what characters he writes. Whether its Frankie in my Faith in Frankie, Or Jen in Re-gifters or Tash in Confessions of a Blabbermouth or Constantine in Hellblazer, when you read the story you care about them (Did I just admit to liking the lead characters in two chic-lits?)
Greg Rucka is another such writer, i can't remember ever bothering about wonder woman , except when Rucka was doing the writing. Same character , same powers, but when Rucka writes you care. Surprisingly If I take a look back at the previous buy on sight Author's (Moore, Gaiman, Miller) they don't share this quality as much. Gaiman and Moore both wrote interesting concepts and idea's which were new/original. Miller was always tough guys being tough, which gets a bit old after a while. I wonder if my reading tastes are changing to preferring character driven stories instead of plot driven?
But anyway this was meant to be about writing. Oh and I would so like to write characters that people would care about , but I think I can't, because I can't invent any, I usually have to base them on people I know (An elf named ... !). At which time it is difficult to change their personality, because that would be in some ways cheating . I think it was Moore who said that you should always write what you would like to read, because that way you are at least guaranteed one satisfied reader. which reminds me I have to complete a story , well not complete, update!
Greg Rucka is another such writer, i can't remember ever bothering about wonder woman , except when Rucka was doing the writing. Same character , same powers, but when Rucka writes you care. Surprisingly If I take a look back at the previous buy on sight Author's (Moore, Gaiman, Miller) they don't share this quality as much. Gaiman and Moore both wrote interesting concepts and idea's which were new/original. Miller was always tough guys being tough, which gets a bit old after a while. I wonder if my reading tastes are changing to preferring character driven stories instead of plot driven?
But anyway this was meant to be about writing. Oh and I would so like to write characters that people would care about , but I think I can't, because I can't invent any, I usually have to base them on people I know (An elf named ... !). At which time it is difficult to change their personality, because that would be in some ways cheating . I think it was Moore who said that you should always write what you would like to read, because that way you are at least guaranteed one satisfied reader. which reminds me I have to complete a story , well not complete, update!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)