chessandlena.com

Anathem by Neal Stephenson

overall rating: 85%, very good
book rereadable: 85%, likely
writer rereadable: 90%, very likely
recommendation: A good thick book to chew on. At times felt a little slow, at times a little overwhelming, but by 1/3 of the way in, I was unable to put it down. Read it if you like spec-fic, Stephenson, authors that make you wrestle with concepts, or books that have their own small encyclopedic glossary.

A strong, complex novel from Stephenson. Definitely on a par with his masterpiece, Cryptonomicon. He introduces some cool spec-fic concepts, such as the monastery as shelter for theoretical science and knowledge (knowledge takes on some aspects of religion in the book), newmatter, and an impressive new lexicon, some words of which might have legs in the real world (jeejah as a ubiquitous handheld electronic device, for example).

Stephenson also presents a new variant of Heinlein's world-as-myth framework, which is both given more mystery than Heinlein's and feels more plausible than Heinlein's (or maybe the mystery helped to sell it better). But whereas Heinlein uses world-as-myth to take you to meet some of your favorite literary characters, Stephenson uses his narrative-as-flow-between-cosmi to place uncertainty, mystery, and a hint of advanced-thinking-as-magic to his story.

The book had one, just one laugh-out-loud moment for me.

...after a while she said: "Do you need transportation? Tools? Stuff?"
"Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs," I said. "We have a protractor."
"Okay. I'll go home and see if I can scrounge up a ruler and a piece of string."
"That'd be great."

Pros: The barrage of names, concepts, and events, though at times overwhelming and at times dancing on the edge of suspension of disbelief, eventually serves to work well for the book. The book is highly imaginative, thought-provoking, and crisply tied together.

Cons: Though there are some solid characters, Erasmas, the protagonist, feels lacking in some way, as do others. The love story between him and Ala almost works; it needs just one piece of reinforcement from Ala somewhere in the middle of the book to make it real. And apparently, Stephenson's naming skills are largely hit-or-miss: the same mind that concocts cool names for the avout like Orolo, Erasmas (okay, that wasn't his), and Arsibalt also came up with such wooden names as Ganelial Crade, Brajj, and Metekoranes. The last one deserves a special place in hell for its similarity to midichlorians... which piss any sensible Star Wars fan off. But I digress.

Ultimately, this is a book for the mind and the imagination. Lodged somewhere between sci-fi and spec-fic, this is quite possibly Stephenson's best yet. It'll take some chewing to digest... but it's well worth it.

The editing room has the best version of Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull I've seen to date, right here.

A brief sample:

HARRISON FORD:
Alright folks, let’s get this show on the road. I want to make it to Country Buffet by four.

CATE BLANCHETT:
Pryvet, Harrison. I am evil Soviet. You vill help me find Moose and Squirrel, yes?

HARRISON FORD:
Holy Christ, you’re not going to talk like that the whole movie are you?

CATE BLANCHETT:
Da. You vill help locate MacKuffin now.

...and when the thing talked about Shia Lebeouf and the monkeys, I swear, I peed a little.

Kung Fu Panda by Dreamworks (Mark Osborne, John Stevenson)

overall rating: 93%, excellent
movie rewatchable: 92%, pretty darn likely
director rewatchable: 90%, very likely
recommendation: See it in the theater, take the kids. I'll probably buy this one when it hits DVD.

This flick is solid entertainment. The animation is excellent, the storyline well-paced, the plot is simple yet full, the characters believable, developed, and engaging.

Strong points: I loved the animation, particularly the stylized old-china parts, although the martial arts slow-mo and split-screen clips paid nice homage to the genre. The story itself is strong, with the messenger duck's feather providing the vehicle for the villain's escape, even as the wise old master had cautioned; and Po the Panda's finding the answer within himself, but only able to see it after he had accepted his father and his humble roots; and the master's finding the way to teach Po by considering him with unbiased eyes. Fat and out-of-shape jokes abounded, but they weren't tiresome, and were handled in a very kindly manner; and since Po's fatness turned out to be a strength, they are yet another way this story was solid and tight.

Weak points: Hardly any. Suspension of disbelief was tight as a drum, characters were as deep as they needed to be, and the story was well-executed. Maybe some of the plot progression was a little quick, but I'd have to dig very hard to come up with a good specific. The plot was formulaic... but the strength of the story carries it through easily.

The movie was a very fun ride, with some dark moments and some serious kung-fu action (probably enough to scare younger kids), but there was no actual carnage-and-death type stuff. Even so, the humor is not in-your-face juvenile; I think this is one of those few gems that will work for all ages watching. See it in the theater.

saw Nim's Island on Sunday night.

Did not suck at all. Very fun ride, actually. Definitely a kid's movie though. Which means it was only a little advanced for me.

Saw Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull tonight.

It kinda sucked.

The Kite Runner by Khaled Hosseini. The book, that is.

overall rating: 95%, very good
book rereadable: 65%, the likely side of maybe
author rereadable: 90%, very likely
recommendation: Literary and modern mainstream fiction readers, read it. Sci-fi-only crowd, you probably won't like it.

The most remarkable fact is that this was Hosseini's first novel. It was very well written, structured, and told. Aristotle's unities, inasmuch as they should be adhered to in a novel and not a short story, were in effect. There was very little superfluous anything in this-- and that which was not absolutely essential to the plot added very much to setting or character. Hosseini showed particular mastery of setting and scenery. His portrayal of the peaceful days of Amir's childhood in Kabul is wonderful; the flea markets in Fremont are vividly painted as well.

Characters and their development in this book were excellent. I have only one complaint: Assef is evil, we know that from his various actions. Yet he also admires Hitler, and later, gives the bio of Hitler to Amir for a birthday present. Now without any further indicators that Hitler is important to the character, the setting, or the plot, mentioning him in this way really was overkill to me. It stuck out like someone Godwinning up in an argument about health care. Now I know that Assef's affinity for Hitler both presages his and Amir's eventual confrontation and foreshadows the fate of the country's complete fall to the Taliban; but it did so as a sledgehammer would kill a fly. To clarify, this was the only beef I had with any of the characters-- but it was strong enough to break suspension of disbelief, so I need to mention it.

In a way, the only other complaint I have is related to that: predictability. You know the final, brutal encounter between Amir and Assef is coming. And you also know that some resolution of Amir's guilt is tied in with it. I don't think that it had to be so... and maybe this is the curse of following the unities, that any character or thread significant enough to be introduced must be resolved within the story, so that leaves you free to guess... and unless you're as devious a storycrafter as JK Rowling, that leaves the options as to how things will work out fairly limited. I'll ponder on that more, but in this particular case, I think it didn't have to be so.

But once again, I have to emphasize that this is a vivid, moving, well-crafted book by all accounts. It is not subtle-- but it is a solid redemption tale built around memorable characters and settings. And a very good read.

Ratatouille by Disney/Pixar, Brad Bird.

overall rating: 91%, very good, a few weaknesses
movie rewatchable: 90%, pretty darn likely
director rewatchable: 95%, extremely likely
recommendation: See it. It's not Pixar's (or Bird's) best, but it's good.

You remember Brad Bird, director for the Incredibles? It's nice to know he can downshift from supervillains conquering the world to a rat conquering the French restaurant scene.

There are so many things that are done right in this movie. The music was perfect; effective in building tension, keeping you grounded in the tres charmant Paris, and filling out the mood of various scenes, I almost want to go back and watch the thing just to hear the soundtrack again. The animation, of course, is the second-to-none we've come to expect from pixar, and the characters are drawn in a way that manages to convince you that they're real: Remy, Linguini, Colette, Skinner the chef, and Ego the food critic all have features or characteristics that help sell their characters, and although it's a trifle noticeable, it doesn't break the suspension of disbelief. Linguini in particular, stands out as the bumbling, yet lovable, sad sack who's always out of his element.

The faults aren't many, but there is one that stood out to me. When Linguini and Remy have their argument, it doesn't feel like it's been justified enough, and so the whole subsequent series of events feels a little hollow. Oddly enough, the corresponding make-up-I'm-sorry speech from Linguini feels too complete, and too understanding. If his understanding was that deep, how did he ever lapse to begin with? Didn't quite make it, in my opinion.

Anyway, its strengths are many, its faults are few. Go see this one if you're a fan of animation or Disney at all. You will not be disappointed. In fact, to describe this flick, I need to use a word that I hardly ever find myself uttering: delightful.