cripesreallyserious

i got into isb

2006-12-11T09:08:00.000-08:00

eek
eek
eek

faking it

2006-12-04T07:04:00.000-08:00

sherlock holmes has the stories, the tv series, the movies, the merchandise, the really really bad jokes. there are a thousand websites with doyley riffs on what the chap did next.
some are very good. short, sweet, occasionally wickedly funny.

but now there is this woman l. king who's apparently writing
the further adventures of Mr. and Mrs. Sherlock Holmes.

{Gasp, choke}

and doing it very, very badly.
read the bio, read the blurb, read the rave reviews and copyright, read the oscar acceptance
(i'd like to thank my mom and dad and poodle and ipod.....)

she didn't really have permission to mess with a legend
it's bad enough when incompetent singers do bad covers of a classic songs
but for some two bit nothing to take on holmes, and ... romanticize him {quel horreur}
such blasphemers should just be shot

most official take overs don't work out too well either
john gardener writes about ian fleming's james bond (having permission from the estate)
poor 007 has to learn computer programming to infiltrate a viral terrorist group
his lines resemble the fumblings of a sophomoric frat boy
he not flemming's bond. he's some screw up with the same name
{nothing againts programmers, salt of the earth}

there's now the money penny diaries
ten pages and i felt a bit sick

lawrence sander's estate has ceded archy mcnally to some lardo
there's something very hollow about poor archy, now almost a caricature.
he's trying too hard to be the bon vivant that first gamboled through palm beach

clive cussler, tom clancy are in colaboration with other insignificants to prop up the series
the results are bland, formulaic nothings, i didn't think worth the three hours
{and more for op center, tommy boy still believes in value for money}
specially when you have the option of better written original stuff by the new kids on the block.

i'd be surprised to find anyone who liked alexandra ripley's scarlett o'hara (believe it or not)
or the really trite mrs. de winter

why do this?

it's like having a good friend get lobotomised and then being stuck with them through monster traffic, or god forbid, when your flight's been delayed and the snack bar/book store is closed.
all you do is bitch bitch bitch about how much they've changed and how you so preferred them before this expensive revivification.

can't they just go out and invent new stories?
i'd much rather be making fond noises about how nice that young Matthew Reilly is, he's grown so well, reminds me of diehl in his salad days.

imitation is the sincerest form of flattery - body snatching is disgusting

(note, i'm still reading all this - sucker that i am)

to his credit, eric lustbader has done a brilliant job with the next step in Robert Ludlum's Jason Bourne series.
(all ye matt damon fans - rejoice!)
Bourne legacy is a fantastic novel, true to both the character and the style of the original, yet distinctlvely an eric story.

Dean Koontz reworked the frankenstien legend beautifully, Ashok Banker has done an impressive reinterpretation of the Ramayana

these are the exceptions that prove the rule:
sequls are bad.
colaborations on a series are worse.
messing with an icon is the kiss of death.

i'm on other peoples blogs

2006-11-20T01:28:00.000-08:00

eek!

this is probably the most unabashed self involved delight ever, but i am so chuffed!
i was reading something on a blog and i found myself as a link!
the highest form of recognition online!
as a virtual presence, i have arrived!
as soon as i figure out how to register onto community thingies, i'll be invited to page 3 events!
people will line up to buy memorabilia on ebay
i'll meet famous people like john sandford and stephen king
{sigh}
{{{sigh}}}
{{{ even bigger sigh}}}

people either like me
(natch, i'm divine - my grandmother says so!)
or like my one and only post
(which i plan to rectify at the soonest, after i get done with this little burst of self congratulation)

.... or i've written so many nasty things about them, they're waiting for payback
(which is a depressing thought - ms. roberts, i do apologise)

so will climb back onto my little pink cloud and think happy thoughts ...

eek!
i'm a link
i'm so popular
i'm a rock star

where's the romance ?

2006-11-13T05:24:00.000-08:00

i'm a major romantic novel reader.
yes they're trashy, the characters are flat, the plotlines are stale, the end predictable yadda yadda yadda
but not always - and it's worth it to find the gem that so much more

but recently, in romantic novel time, there's very little romance left
everyone has sex
in excruciating (and badly written) detail

which they might have done before as well, and one should not have double standards about what "good girls" do (fill in more yadda yadda yadda)

but i don't want a blow by blow account (literally)
if i'm reading a 200 page novel and skipping 150 pages because i just think some things are too much information, then where's the romance ?
where the bits where she's thinking about him (and who's been in love and not spent inordinate amounts of time worrying about does he like me, should i call now, should i leave a message, sigh ... isn't he cute)

this is a bit of a dichotomy - i don't mind being privy to someones most personal thoughts, but cringe at being a fly on the wall.
but i really like matt damon, and i still don't want pictures of him using the loo - some things are private
so atleast i'm consistently dichotomous.

when i think of romance, i'm thinking of herats and flowers, candle light cliches, sharing an umbrella, walks on the beach, long conversations on the phone, jokes just between the two of you, lots of doodling and sigh ...

the bubble inside
when you love someone
or think you might more than just like them
or feel attracted
or have this delightful flirtation, that seems like it could be more
or not - it was just fun!

and the anguish
when you don't know, or can't express yourself or he's not interested

it's powerful when well written
50% of the music industry is all about that

chick flicks have kissing - for about 10 minutes of the movie
why do romance novels have to degenerate into this pulp?
mush is good, mush is fine
i'm not sure i want mild pornography

writers like Nora Roberts and Jayne Ann Krentz, who are great at capturing family dynamics,
do wonderful contemporary women characters, great dialogues
also seem to feel the need to "spice up" their stories
(how i loathe the phrase, so reminiscent of bad pav bhaji with too much garam masala)
which is mildly believeable, because perhaps it is common for women in Seattle or in small towns on the east coast to have sex within a few days of meeting someone
(i know, i know, there's no formula to when it should happen, it should happen when you're ready to take that step - take it, please, just don't describe all of it)

but when regency authors like Christina Dodd, Johanna Lindsay or Stephanie Laurens take the same over the top approach, i find it a bit off.
maybe it happened. maybe there were multiple assignations
it just doesn't work with my idea of romance with a capital r (sorry, R)
(these authors have some great stories, and wonderful characters - thank goodness the novels are long enough to see that)

grrrr ...

any one out there who's remotely simpatico - please, please send recommendations

cripestheresmoretothisthanithought

2006-11-08T09:39:00.000-08:00

hello blog people
i come in peace