17.2.09

a belated review: the dreaded "the da vinci code"


some of those close to me have heard or read my tirades on this novel. but as this is a new blog and new year, i'm coming back with it. this time i'm not sticking to an, "it sucks" argument. it does suck. and here's why...

first, the concept of the story. how is this at all new? how has anyone lived more than 18 years of his or her life and not heard of any other work that suggests the key points of this trite and overdone story? cryptology and conspiracy theory aside, who hasn't heard or even come up with, completely on their own, the possibility of mary magdalene having been jesus' wife and bearing his children? even if you do consider the conspiracy theory side of it - the involvement of secret societies guarding the "truth" about jesus christ's lineage - it is not new. if it were new, it is not still not that original. any person can come up with such a plot. the expression of it would be where it counts. it would be what sets this apart from any work that touches on similar ideas. so let's explore that.

it's so difficult to know where to start and what to end on: the tired prose; the exhausting repetition of the same descriptive words; the horrendous dialogue; this suspense drama that impossibly some how comes off as a harlequin romance without the sweaty sex in a barnyard or some hidden cape; the attempts at suspense and cliff hangers that any well read person can see right through; the claims of factual evidence before and after the actual story when those things have been proven to be hoaxes by the very people who invented them; the attempts at dynamic characters that are actually quite boring and bland as though brown intended them to come off as a pig in a dress; and the very worst part being a claim that this isn't some big, blockbuster, hollywood movie when it is completely executed as one (and subsequently turned into one).

fans love to come up with the "IT'S FICTION!!!" argument against those of us who find this book to be nothing more than a horrible waste of environmental agents to mass produce such a ridiculous novel. please read this and understand it: there are a great deal of people out there who don't care at all about its religious connotations. so take that argument completely out of the picture. this is not about offense over a sensitive subject. this is about a book that was not good from conceptualization to execution. but even without the religious debate surrounding it, there are still TDVC lovers who argue that brown's complete disregard for historical fact is still okay because it is fiction. sorry, no. that's not how it works. this was not a fantasy or science fiction novel taking place in a made up world. this is, whether you realize it or not, reality based fiction. dan brown intended it to be so. and the man did not do his research. that's the thing with reality based fiction, one needs to do his or her research or be able to depict life accurately and believably. you can create a made up town in alaska. you cannot describe alaska as a tropical island. you almost have to come up with completely fictional people. you cannot give them hooves instead of feet or purple polka dots on their hot pink third and fourth arms. you can give an alternate explanation to historical events. you cannot depict them as not happening at all or happening differently.

now, though i admit to being a literary elitist, fond mostly of the classics who would love to be able to absorb much more fantasy and science fiction novels if i didn't believe that most of them were so poorly written (and worse, in a collection of 600+ pages), i absolutely have my guilty pleasures. i read old favorites i appreciated as a teenager and am fully aware of how poorly they are written. there are things i pick up now and instantly love despite the lame execution. so i understand the ignorant appreciation of this book. and i call it ignorant because those who read this and love it are likely to have not been exposed to the works that came before it that far surpass the artistic merit of TDVC. but it should not be regarded as an incredibly written work of art that deserves any of the accolades it has garnered.

10.2.09

fun times gift from the heart,...

i'm the regular cook around these parts. but regular cooking often only involves one main dish, one side and some veggies, er, sometimes. though some of those regular dishes are somewhat labor intensive, we're usually talking about a maximum of 1 hour preparation not counting the amount of time it takes to marinate meat when called for. it never gets more intense than that.

a few valentine's day ago i went hardcore with a roast and some other stuff. it was a multi course meal that took me a good day to prepare with a few hours spent on previous days to get other things prepped.

this year i'm doing it again. we're having a multi course romantic valentine day dinner the day after valentine's day so it doesn't cut into our mikey time and i can enlist the help of a relative to clear the house out of mother and children. dinner will be for two this sunday.

we're going italian and this is going to be way more labor intensive than the previously mentioned roast dinner.

on the menu...

1. amuse-bouche: bruschetta - a toasted round of italian bread topped with tomatoes marinated with garlic and basil. crispy pancetta and fresh shredded parmesan cheese

2. salad: caesar salad with rommaine lettuce, garlic croutons and a parmesan crisp.

3. appetizer: polenta round topped with gnocchi in a prosciutto and pea olive oil sauce.

4. main course: chicken parmigiana - crisp, breaded chicken breast in a marinara sauce smothered in mozzarella and parmesan cheese.

5. side dish: spaghetti in a sun dried tomato, basil and garlic infused olive oil dressing.

6. dessert: chocolate cherry cheesecake

i was going to make tiramisu for dinner but finding lady fingers here is just a bitch. and there's no way in hell i'm going to make my own. besides, my "best friend" loves cheesecake.

the list of ingredients, those not already existing in the house, are as follows:

- potatoes
- nutmeg
- frozen peas
- prosciutto
- shallots
- ricotta cheese
- canned tomatoes
- bread crumbs
- parsley
- mozzarella cheese
- spaghetti
- french bread
- tomatoes
- pancetta
- basil
- fresh parmesan
- caesar dressing
- romaine lettuce
- croutons
- sun dried tomatoes
- olives
- chocolate cookies
- cream cheese
- cherries
- bittersweet chocolate chips

good lord, what am i getting myself into.

and sorry for another deviation. this is supposed to be about the non-wife things. so it's not. it's just a looooooooooove thing.

7.2.09

stop it! just stop it!

now this had been made fun of in several movies, tv shows, comic bits, etc. i know that most people with a working brain and ears have in some way been exposed to the proper usage and definition of the following word. there is no way in hell that a person over the age of, say, 18 has lived his or her entire life never once learning the meaning of the word or at least observed some kind of repartee in which the word in question was referenced. and you know what, even if you haven't, there's this big ass book full of words called a dictionary. look it up. it's not that hard. or if you don't know the proper meaning of some word, how about you just don't fricking use it?

the word? LITERALLY.

i want to claw people's eyes out whenever they use the word "literally" improperly. you did not literally explode. if you did, your stupid ass wouldn't be here to tell me that because guess what, brainiac, you would have fucking EXPLODED! LITERALLY! as in your entrails would have been splattered all over the walls or you would have become a cloud of fucking dust. you will not literally die without sex. no one has ever died without sex, not even sex addicts. unless there's a gun to your head or knife against your throat or some explosive device that could literally blow your ass up, and you are forced to screw, you will not literally die.

i've said before, i am by no means one of those self-proclaimed grammar nazis. because those people make me want to literally bitch slap them. but c'mon. enough is enough. just stop using literally unless you are using the literal definition. please.

just look it up.

and while you're at it, look up ironic. and pass a note on to alanis.

2.2.09

what's up with that???

a few friends who visit my blog have asked about the newly installed polyvore widget. the sets i've put together are obvious or obscure. the latest ones have sets of clothes associated with a name. aside from one entitled "akididor" - which will remain a mystery to those who are unaware of who she is - the rest are based on characters in various works of mine.

that's it homeys.