Just A Little Nutty

Thanks Brooke!

The Case Against Scandinavian Naivete

I have been reading bits and piece about the Salinger copyright lawsuit in the last few weeks, but it wasn't until I sat down to read this piece in Publisher's Weekly just now that I got the full gist of it. As the article explains Salinger is suing Swedish author Fredrik Colting for trying to publish an "unauthorized sequel" to The Catcher In The Rye. Colting claims it is not a sequel but instead a "stand-alone story that serves as a critique of Salinger and his work." Of course it is impossible to determine who is right in this argument without having read the actual work in question, and even if having read it, it seems deciding a case like this could be based on some rather subjective opinions of literature. As the article's author points out, more importantly than the legal matters at the heart of this trial, the really question everyone is waiting to hear answered is whether the notoriously reclusive Salinger will actually make a public appearance in order to defend the honor of his most prized creation:

"If Salinger refuses to answer the defense's questions, LiCalsi notes, the court can impose sanctions and even dismiss the case. Thus, filing suit against Colting may have put Salinger's desire for privacy on a collision course with his desire to protect Holden Caulfield."

Regardless of the outcome, my interest is certainly piqued in Colting's story and based on the short description, were it to be published I would certainly be interested in giving it a read. Not to mention, he seems genuinely wary of the media attention this has caused.

"Given Salinger's history, it seems almost unfathomable that any author would take on his work without at least spoiling for some kind of fight. Colting, however, is rather apologetic for possibly upsetting Salinger, and wary of the media attention his book has generated. “I guess I knew there would be interest,” he conceded. “But I can't say I knew or suspected any of this was going to happen. I'm from Sweden. People don't go around suing each other here. Maybe I was a little naïve.” "

Anyone who uses "I'm from Sweden" as their main defense tactic has certainly got my support.

I don't get it.

Am I missing something here? David Fincher in consideration to direct the Facebook movie. How is this a movie? Last week they announced a "Where's Waldo?" film and then five minutes later a flick based on  "Stretch Armstrong", followed by a pitch based on a Facebook status update. Has Hollywood collectively gone mad? Since when is making movies as simple as greenlighting the latest brand name or toy from the 80's? I mean sure I get it from a business standpoint, you don't have to be an idiot to see that brands equate to dollars, just look at yesterdays Transformers 2 opening. What I don't get is when quality filmmakers start jumping on the bandwagon. How is a movie about a website cinematic in any way, shape or form?

Are you freakin kidding me?!

If this sells I will eat my arm. 

I've got some gems in my Facebook status updates, maybe I should pitch them around town, in fact I'll make it a bargain, I'll sell the whole lot of em for the price of one.

I mean, honestly, what the hell?!

Really Sarah Palin?! Really?!

Letterman sincerely apologized and Palin "accepts" his apology.

"Letterman certainly has the right to 'joke'about whatever he wants to, and thankfully we have the right to express our reaction. And this is all thanks to our U.S. military women and men putting their lives on the line for us to secure America's right to free speech - in this case, may that right be used to promote equality and respect."

Was it really necessary to bring the military into this? I highly doubt military men and women are putting their lives on the line in the name of crappy latenight jokes and douchebag grandstanding by airhead governors. Sheesh. Come on lady, enough already.

Lady Friends

Just in case you thought I was suddenly gettin all serious with my last post:

Reproductive Matters

Really interesting piece in Broadsheet today about a woman's right to control her own fertility decisions.

"The controversy is over women controlling their own fertility. It's about whether we have the right to decide for ourselves if and when to have children, whether we're autonomous human beings with full rights or if our primary purpose on earth is to birth and nurture the next generation."

We all know the great abortion debate has long been a subject of public scrutiny, but as this article points out it seems that it's in fact all issues of the womb that seem to be up for public debate. Whether we chose to procreate or not, how many children we chose to have, whether we seek assistance in the form of medical treatment in order to make childbearing possible and as with the example of Tarrah Seymour our ability to choose our own methods of birth control. The list seems endless and I don't really want to weigh in my own personal opinion on each and every item, but I do think the overall question of how much control a woman has over her own reproductive functions is an important one. Why do we so closely monitor and debate these issues and yet pay little or no attention to the subject as it adheres to men? I certainly don't hear any public outcry over men who donate their sperm to sperm banks or those who chose to get vasectomies, why then is it that women should be held under such a strong microscope when it comes to such personal and private matters? 

Regardless of where you stand on the topics of abortion, infertility, birth control, etc., I think it's about time we stop hiding behind the notion that this is a debate about morals and ethics and admit that it's really about a woman's basic rights to control the reproductive functions of her own body. As Kate Harding so poignantly puts it: 

"As long as we keep pretending that the debate is only about "killing babies" and not about whether women should have the basic right to control our own fertility, that common ground will remain elusive." 

Why won't she just go away?

Is Letterman a sexist pig? Or is Palin making too much of all this? Salon can't seem to decide. 

I think the real question we should be asking is why the hell is this woman still whoring herself out to the media every other day and why are we letting her?!

Twilight

Finally got around to watching Twilight this weekend and boy what a stinker. About ten minutes in, the hubby looked at me and said "This is kind of like The Lost Boys, but bad." And I had to agree, yet we carried on watching as one cringe worthy line was spoken after another. I kept hoping that Pattinson's deer-in-headlights look was just a fluke moment the first time and yet every other scene there it was again. All that coupled with ridiculously unnecessary voiceover, really, really poor casting and a director who clearly thought she was shooting a bad 80s music video and not a movie, made for a huge disappointment in my book.

The problem is I don't think the bad filmmaking was entirely at fault, and I hate to admit this, but I think some of the blame resets on the book itself. For example, much of the voiceover and cheesy dialogue was straight out of the book and while it may have worked on paper, it simply didn't translate well on screen. Rather than feeling nostalgic about the book as I watched, I was merely left wondering, wow was the book really this bad? I think this is a prime example of why sometimes a literal adaptation just doesn't work. With Harry Potter the books are action oriented and incredibly visual and so you can "see" the film as you are reading. A book like Twilight is so much more internal and thought driven that it really requires some effort to make it work, effort that sadly was not put forth in this attempt. My final verdict: if you haven't yet read or seen, skip the flick, stick with the book.

A baby by any other name...

As a writer names have always been something I have had difficulty with. I can never start writing until I name my characters, but it inevitably takes me forever to decide on the perfect name, so it comes as no real surprise that I am having such a hard time with this whole baby-naming business. Having grown up with a difficult name myself, the importance of naming my baby with the perfect name is naturally something of an obsession. For those of you who don't know me, my full name is Shahrzad. As an adult I have come to enjoy the uniqueness of my name and of course as a writer I appreciate the meaning behind it (i.e. the storyteller from the Arabian Nights), but as a kid growing up it was a whole different ball of wax. I couldn't understand for the life of me why my parents would want to stick me with such an obviously awkward, difficult-to-pronounce name. I even went through a phase where I thought I might try going by my middle name, Maria, but that never really became a reality outside of my own hopeful imaginings. 

Now that it comes down to naming my own child and I have the wisdom of my own experience, I want to find a name that is both unique and simple, something easy to spell and pronounce, but different enough that it doesn't automatically have to be coupled with the first initial of her last name so as to recognize the difference between her and the four other girls in her class with the same name. On top of all this it just has to sound right, roll off the tongue well, fit with our last name and feel natural. In other words it has to be perfect. And so far nothing fits the bill. We have a short list --not all agreed upon between my husband and myself-- but a list nonetheless of names we really like, and yet I still don't feel like I've found that perfect one. Maybe I'm making too much of this, maybe a name is just a name. All I know is the baby isn't even born yet and parenting is already difficult.

UP

This weekend was the first time I'd been to a movie in over 6 months, probably longer, I can't even remember what the last film was to be honest. While I do still enjoy the movie-going experience on some levels, for the most part I much prefer to see a flick from the comfort of my own couch. There have been films I've wanted to see, and there is a long list of summer flicks I tell myself I will attempt to go see in the theater but the truth of the matter is I will probably be lucky if I see even one or two more before the baby comes. 

All that said, I was definitely not disappointed by my movie selection for the first theater excursion in so many months. UP was yet another beautifully written and amazingly executed film from Pixar, I mean seriously, can they do no wrong? I laughed, I cried, I was thoroughly entertained and inspired, but I was also quite surprised by the incredibly risky choice of a main protagonist in a family film. From a purely business-of-filmmaking standpoint having a 70 something year-old man as the main character of a film targeted towards children and families is quite unusual. To date I think this is Pixar's most adult film both character-wise and thematically, although I don't necessarily consider that a criticism, obviously it works --the theater was packed and adults and children alike seemed to enjoy the film on many levels-- in fact I think if anything its a testament to what great filmmakers and innovators Pixar has, that they could make a film about a lonely old man seem interesting to an 8 year-old.