pancakesKnygatin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sawfish Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Knygatin Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Sawfish Wrote:
> > >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > > >
> > > > BTW; what did you make of the book
> "Interview
> > > > with the Vampire"?
> > > >
> > > > Now; I'll ask you to try to qualify your
> > > > consideration. Try to think of how it struck
> you
> > > > when it was the only book in
> theseries--before
> > > > the author milked the themes to death as a
> > > > commercialized revenue stream.
> > > >
> > >
> > > !!!??? I am not familiar with that one.
> >
> >
> [
en.wikipedia.org]
>
> > ampire
> >
> > It was made into a big budget film that somehow
> > lost almost all of the positive aspects.
>
> I have a vague memory of it. But like with
> Coppola's Dracula, I felt this was nothing that
> concerned me, so I immediately rejected it. Wasn't
> Tom Cruise in it and Brad Pitt!!?? Cripes!! There
> is nothing supernatural about those two. Put in
> the film only to sell tickets to confused
> star-struck teenagers.
>
> I saw piles of the author's book stacked up in the
> bookstores, now that I think of it. But too much
> commerce, too popular among "normal" people, too
> "social" phenomenon. For the herd. That didn't
> attract me. I stuck to Lovecraft and Smith
> instead, and Vance. That didn't interest "normal
> people". They didn't even know what it was.
> Shaking their heads with wry smile at my
> "originality". Well, screw them!
Interesting you mention how apparent popular opinion affects you, K. I have a similar experience in that an indicator of wide popularity is almost a certain sign that I won't find *enough* in it.
I guess I *live* in terms of moderation but *think* in terms of excess. I would suggest that this is why Corben may appeal to you: there is much excess in Corben, and maybe the main reason I never got into him is that his color palette is "indigestible" to me. The narratives were fine but...
It's like a sort of a personal aesthetic lactose intolerance, I'd guess...
But here's the funny thing I came to find over the years. Once popular reviews started on line--you know, IMDB, etc.--where regular viewers write/vote on films they've seen, I have found that medium or low rated films (or books, or anything, I think) that have a sort of "loved it/hated it" response have a fair chance of being something I'll like.
This is because they are polarizing over matters of excess. It's just a question of what the excess is--whether that particular excess is attractive to me.
This is why "Rime of the Ancient Mariner" is *good* so far as I'm concerned.
E.g. right after Tarantino came onto the scene, there were a lot of imitators, and some were good, but many were not. There is one that I really like that most reviewers really dislike: "Things to Do in Denver When You're Dead". It's strangely colorful, playful gangland story told in a bar by an old boozer and it features wildly exaggerated Runyon-esue colloquialisms and characters.
It's told as if he thinks that you're familiar with this exaggerated argot so he doesn't explain it and it can be very comical.
E.g. the word "buckwheats". To normal people this would mean a stack of pancakes but in the context of the film, it described the worst thing that can happen to you.
Similarly, "boat drinks" symbolizes the high life.
And there was one quote I really liked and think of often as I encounter examples in real life:
"His reputation vastly exceeded his actual abilities."
One thug said this about another thug whom he'd just killed.
So excess is very often what I'm looking for.
Not a fan of Howard's End or Dalton Abbey.
--Sawfish
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The food at the new restaurant is awful, but at least the portions are large."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~