<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener("load", function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <iframe src="http://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID=12843592&amp;blogName=Poor+Young+Things&amp;publishMode=PUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT&amp;navbarType=BLACK&amp;layoutType=CLASSIC&amp;homepageUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fpooryoungthings.blogspot.com%2F&amp;blogLocale=en_US&amp;searchRoot=http%3A%2F%2Fpooryoungthings.blogspot.com%2Fsearch" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" height="30px" width="100%" id="navbar-iframe" title="Blogger Navigation and Search"></iframe> <div></div>

What is a good book? Ideas pulled from "The Picture of Dorian Gray."

Monday, June 29, 2009

I recently wrote a summary of The Picture of Dorian Gray in preparation for the upcoming school year in which I'll be a teaching it to a senior class. The summary is a synthesis of my annotations, thoughts, and analysis of the book and its implications, one of which I wanted to share here:

The novel opens with Wilde’s personal treatise on art. Wilde, who wrote towards the end of the Romantic period and before the Modern period, situated himself in the Decadent movement, which originated in France and espoused a purely aesthetic view of art. In Wilde’s own words, “there is no such thing as an immoral book. Books are well written or badly written. That is all.” The artist, thought Wilde, was a “creator of beautiful things.” Beauty, then, lay in the form and craft of the art (be it a poem, a novel, or a painting), with the content mattering not at all. Wilde concludes his treatise acknowledging that “all art is quite useless,” meaning it is useless for study and personal improvement. This makes interpreting The Picture of Dorian Gray rather tricky, as the novel appears to be very moral indeed.

In contrast to this, the educated 18th century novelist and literary critic Samuel Johnson believed that authors had a duty to produce works of art that were not only well crafted by morally sound. He believed that art, free from the constraints of being historical, should “exhibit the most perfect idea of virtue; of virtue not angelical, nor above probability, for what we cannot credit we shall never imitate, but the highest and purest that humanity can reach." In other words, since we can create whatever we want in fiction, what we create should be of the utmost value because “it is always a writer’s duty to make the world better.”

To go even further, let us examine a third author. In An Experiment on Criticism, C. S. Lewis writes that a true work of literature must be a complex combination of both Logos (something said, what the work means), and Poiema (something made, what the work is). He chastises any literature that is only one of the two, and any reader who only sees or pursues one of the two above the other. We are not to read only beautiful fluff, nor are we to read morally dense but badly written works for the sole purpose of self-betterment. The first is escapism and the second is mere exercise with no true sense of pleasure. “Good reading,” concludes Lewis, “though it is not essentially an affectional or moral or intellectual activity, has something in common with all three."

The question is then presented to us, here in the present day: which of these three do we side with? Are they right in some way and wrong in others? Does any one of these men have an answer that is closer to the reality than another one of them?

My New Favorite Picture

Monday, June 22, 2009

I'm not sure what to say about this picture other than it's awesome, for in two seconds it tells you exactly what's wrong with Lucas' film-making -- a subject that could have taken several minutes to verbally explain.



Movie Night 3

Friday, June 19, 2009


Movie Night 3 is here! For our next movie night its time to have it back at the Pevey's house. Considering we all seem to like suspense, the movie for MN3 will be Deathtrap.

Made in 1982 and starring Christopher Reeve and Michael Caine,
Deathtrap is the film adaptation to the hit play by the same name. Although a suspense film (in the classic who-dun-it style) the movie has plenty of humor to keep the mood light after the serious issues explored by Jacob's Latter Ladder.

Do we want to do dinner again? Do we want to do a pot luck? We want to open our table up and have a real sit down dinner. Sounds fun, eh? Post comments about dates, times, and ideas. We are willing to even invite more people if that arises.

This Isn't Your Grandfather's Bed-Ridden, Boring Star Trek Anymore...

Monday, May 11, 2009

J. J. Abrams, the director of the new Star Trek film, had a difficult job: make people notice his new Star Trek movie was good before they dismiss it as "not Star Trek enough." His technique? Begin with little fanfare: no voice over ("Space, the final frontier..."), no swelling Trek-ish music theme, no complex political setup, just an opening scene that puts the viewer smack into a armrest-grabbing situation.  As origin stories go, this is one of the smartest. Through a clever plot device, this movie pays homage to original Star Trek canon while giving itself liberty to do whatever it wants, but Abrams doesn't throw away the old for the new as most re-makes do. Through thoughtful tweaks he keeps the original feel, look and spirit while making it more appealing (and believable) for 21st century movie goers.


In short, this is a class "A" adventure. It's 120 minutes of non-stop fun, and it manages to capture the essence of the series while finally ditching the snail's pace plotting and direction that have plagued the franchise ever since the politically focused, hum-drum utopia of Star Trek: The Next Generation. After this film, watching any post-60's Trek (series or movies) will be difficult as they'll all appear to be on a heavy dose of valium. This Star Trek differs from the movies of the past in a very significant way in that it was marketed as being the brainchild of the director, J. J. Abrams. Tying the movie itself to the talent and energy of the director is a bold move that Trek has never done, but can serve a franchise well when the director is truly talented (the new Batman and Spider-man franchises have done the same to great success). Star Trek, as a property, has always been hampered by a personality. While Gene Roddenbury was alive he always had the final say, and after he passed on Rick Berman took over, and tried very very hard to drive the franchise into obscurity. Apparently, between then and now, Paramount actually woke up and realized they had a terrific little story on their hands once the fat could be trimmed. Enter J. J. Abrams, who places his unique stamp on every frame of this movie. His energy and enthusiasm for fun storytelling infuses every shot, from the sometimes-stretched-and-warped perspective, to the copious use of lens flares (try to find a scene on the Enterprise without one, I dare you. I haven't, by the way, ever seen lens flares used like this in a movie. Have there been?). He makes the film feel "new" by making it feel like it was shot off the dolly, using only natural light. This is a huge contrast from the boring, lets-track-down-the-corridor-at-eye-height camera style thats been the staple of everything Trek since Next Generation. Go back and re-watch the old show from the 60s then turn on an episode of TNG and see which one this film feels more like. Back in the 60s, on the Desilu sound stage, Roddenbury and his team created what, now, looks like the garage-rock of TV. Tilted cameras, bizarre lighting (I mean it was the 60s), and funky close-ups give the original show an energy the franchise lost in the mid-90s.


You can't have Star Trek without the Enterprise, and this time she is designed, apparently, by Apple, Inc. God, she's pretty. And she can move. She can actually move, not just hang in space, and that's thanks to Sulu's piloting skill. Which brings me to the crew, who now play a vital role on the Enterprise. The crew on previous Star Trek films (and shows) always felt ancillary, there only in case the Enterprise happened to break down, so the movies devolved into people talking forever because there was nothing for them to actually do. In Abrams' Trek, Sulu can pilot the hell out of that big ship, and he needs to (I can't tell you why, but its a great scene). Chekov is a theoretical physics wizard (rivaled only by Spock), and he needs to be since he's the navigator, forced to deal with the complex issues of space travel. Uhuru is brilliant and charasmatic, not just an operator waiting for someone to dial "0" on the galactic phone. McCoy (played brilliantly by Karl Urban. Abrams coaxed some amazing acting from these folks), likewise, is shown to be a phobic-ridden, high-strung, but well-versed doctor, and Scotty an accomplished, if somewhat underachieving, engineer-in-waiting. The movie goes out of its way to illustrate how complex operating the Enterprise and dealing with unpredictable situations are, and that every opinion, every crew member, is necessary. If the studio doesn't have their heads up their backsides they'll sign Abrams and the cast for at least two more and give the director free reign. Statistically, the chance the studio DOESN'T have its head where the sun don't shine is low, so there might be a flurry of mediocre to pathetic sequels coming out in next few years, but who cares? We've finally gotten the best Trek film we've ever had.

A Long Respite

Sunday, January 18, 2009

I'm not even sure anyone still reads this. Hell, it hasn't been updated in two months. The computer at Google reads it when I post, so maybe it'll get a kick out of these pictures. Won't you, Mike? (That's a sci-fi novel joke for the uninitiated).

I'll be doing a pro-bono fashion/head shot/photo shoot for a gal in our church in about a week, so I figured it was high time to get back into the habit of shooting.

Liz and I did a little photo shoot this evening, even getting to capture a few flakes of snow as it fell outside. Below are a few from our evening with the camera. If you like them, check out the rest at my Zenfolio site. You can even guy a print there if you wanted. 





"Quantum of Solace" review

Friday, November 28, 2008

"I find you disturbingly efficient," says the new Bond girl to James about half-way through the film. The shocking truth here is that this is really a description of the film itself as much as it is the film's titular character. Bouncing from one action sequence to the next, pausing only long enough to have two very truncated, rushed "character" conversations, Quantum of Solace feels like someone edited out the actual movie in a rush to make an action picture. The good news is that the title sequence is the best a Bond film has had, well, ever, and the song (written by Jack White) totally rocks.

Now, I'm not a Bond fan, so I suppose it's easy to assume my review is going to be biased, which is why I'll say you can judge this film by "Bond standards" and still feel it comes up lacking. "Bond standards" are assumptions and givens a viewer takes with himself into a Bond movie: a) Bond is a super-hero, not a man; b) Bond's motivations are clearly laid out; c) Bond's motivations and desires never change. Frankly, I find it rather hard to accept any character that never changes or truly feels emotional responsibility as good writing, but I'm trying to think like a Bond-ite for a second. Anyway, even by those standards this movie feels robotic. This Bond has none of the grace of Connery, none of the charm of Brosnon, and none of the wit of any Bond. Doing away with one-liners and gadgets was a deliberate decsion in Casino Royal to return Bond to a more "normal" universe. Royal balanced these omitions out by giving Bond an actual character arc. This movie, though, has none of the above: no gadgets, no arc, no quips. In Quantum, he's Robocop, storming from one location to the next killing people, wreaking havoc, and all the while maintaining an emotionless, stoic countenance. He shows no fear, no anger, no sorrow. The one time he gets some from the fairer sex no attempt is even made to charm his way into the girl's pants. It's as if the film-makers couldn't be bothered to write that days' page and in its place the script said, "INT: HOTEL, Bond enters, looks around then tells her to 'do it.' Then they do it." Seriously, folks, he basically struts in and commands her to sleep with him, as if his mere presence is so authoritative he can dissolve any hesitation (or morality) a female might have. Bond has always had the mojo to seduce (a fact Austin Powers mocked to great success), but at least he put some effort into it in the old days. His efforts were clumsy, teenage versions of romance, but at least it was something.

I'd like to make a comparison here by bringing up that Bond's box-office competitor, Jason Bourne, was betrayed by his government and all those people he wanted to trust, yet he retained an emotional center. He was out to get certain people, sure, but not the whole damn world. How childish, then, does this make Bond? Bond cared for someone, she turned on him, so now he's out to punish the universe by seeing everyone as a mere object (the men he kills, the women he beds). He works for his own ends, essentially, under the guise of being a British agent who cares about British interests. He's a child throwing a temper tantrum. This Bond is a pure brute with no depth. The Hulk has Banner to balance him out and create conflict, Robocop had his human side, the T-101 has a re-programming, but Bond has neither. Imagine just the Hulk with no Banner, or Robocop with no hint of humanity. What's the point? It's rather hard to give Bond any leeway after the Bourne films showed that action movies can have a lead with a genuine character arc. You know what? If Bond is wish fullfilment I am rather unsettled about what our wishes just might be.

Model Shoot

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

I got to do a model shoot in conjunction with the Atlanta Photographer's Guild. It's a casual, come if you wish affair at a pub, but it does provide cool opportunities. Here are some of the pictures I got from it. I'm extremely happy with these, and feel confident that these could land me much bigger work.








Now, I just need clients. *sigh*