January 26, 2012

Review: Brayden's Sweet Revenge


Brayden's Sweet Revenge
Brayden's Sweet Revenge by Justin Luke Zirilli

My rating: 3 of 5 stars



This short novel is as well-written and as energetic as the author's previous work, Gulliver Travels, but Brayden isn't nearly as likeable as Gulliver . . . in fact, Brayden is a horrifying sociopath. This is a rather unpleasant tale of confused revenge.



View all my reviews

Review: Ready Player One


Ready Player One
Ready Player One by Ernest Cline

My rating: 5 of 5 stars



A fascinating jump into the future to look back with nostalgia into the past. If you had any geeky interests in the 1980s (as I did, in spades), you'll very much enjoy the glut of gaming, music, movie, TV, and technology references in here. Particularly impressive is how well the story's complicated and virtual visuals are rendered so cinematically. And although this book is a geeky technophile's dream, the characterizations and emotion aren't significantly short-shrifted. Highly recommended for any gamer, as this novel comes closest to any literary equivalent I've ever read.



View all my reviews

January 08, 2012

Favorite Books: Sylvester and the Magic Pebble


One of my favorite books of all time is Sylvester and the Magic Pebble by William Steig.  It was published in 1969, and won the Caldecott Medal in 1970.  I was born late in 1969, and I don't remember the first time I was read this book, so my mother must've gotten it pretty early on.  I still read it regularly, and it's become my standard favorite children's picture book, up there with Maurice Sendak's Where the Wild Things Are and Shel Silverstein's The Giving Tree.

Sylvester and the Magic Pebble is a frightening, magical story about a young donkey named Sylvester who likes collecting unusual pebbles.  One day, while out walking alone on a rainy day, he finds a shiny red pebble, and while holding it, offhandedly wishes the rain would stop.  The rain CEASES, and after a few tests, Sylvester realizes that the pebble grants wishes as long as he is holding it.

Thrilled about his discovery, Sylvester heads home with big plans for the pebble's magic, but on the way, he is spotted by a hungry lion.  In panic, Sylvester doesn't think clearly, and to protect himself, wishes that he was a rock.  And so he turns into a rock, safe from the lion, but with the pebble lying beside him, not quite touching him, Sylvester can't turn himself back into a donkey.

So Sylvester is stuck as a rock, unable to get home to his loving parents, unable to do anything but lie there and wait, powerless. That's the stuff of childhood nightmares -- being separated from home, transformed into something unrecognizable and immobile, with all the power in the universe lying right beside you but unreachable.  By acting quickly without thinking, Sylvester traded one danger for something even worse.

I always found the worry on his parents' faces so touching as they start searching for him. It's wrenching how they slip into despair as Sylvester is nowhere to be found, even after asking all the kids in the neighborhood, the police, and sniffing dogs to search him out. And all the time, Sylvester is just less than a mile away, unable to return home. It hits home with every child how sad his parents felt.  As Steig writes, "They were miserable. Life had no meaning for them any more."

The seasons pass, and Sylvester slips into the ennui of being a rock, sleeping so he won't feel "hopeless and unhappy".  There's one snowy winter scene in which a wolf sits on the Sylvester-rock and "howled and howled because he was hungry."  I always loved that so much -- the wolf crying out in hunger mirroring Sylvester's endless desire to return home. The illustration is white and cold, and just heartbreaking.

Finally, in Spring, Sylvester's parents go have a sad picnic, and through sheer coincidence, set up their umbrella and basket next to the Sylvester-rock, and eat right on top of him.  They talk about him, but he can't respond, which is maddening. His mother even has a feeling that he is near.  His father finds the red magic pebble, and puts it on top of the rock, saying how much Sylvester would have loved it for his collection.

Sylvester wishes he was "my real self again" and presto!, he returns to being a donkey.  They rejoice in surprise, which will still reduce me to tears on occasion.  Then they go home together, and have no need to use the pebble's magic, because, "for now, what more could they wish for? They all had all that they wanted."

In simple, direct language, Steig weaves a emotional, psychologically and philosophically complex tale that has never stopped resonating with me and millions of others.  The story is deeply sad and quite terrifying, really, but the drawings have lots of humor, too, like the ducks in the river looking up in surprise when Sylvester wishes the rain away, the consternation on the face of the lion when Sylvester turns into a rock, and the dishes falling off Sylvester's back when he transforms back into a donkey.

Even as a child, I also knew it was funny that the police in town were drawn as pigs, but that's also caused the book to be banned in various places. Whatever -- it's a tiny subversive touch that only makes me love the book even more.


I've loved William Steig as a New Yorker cartoonist, too, and I've enjoyed some of his other picture books, but nothing comes close to the pure emotional wallop Sylvester and the Magic Pebble delivers with its short, delightfully illustrated story.  Yes, Steig also wrote the book Shrek!, which the popular DreamWorks movies were based on, but for me, Sylvester's story is the one that really hits home.

It's a perfect children's book, and will always be one of my all-time favorites.

January 07, 2012

Gripe: Entropy



Entropy
noun
1. Thermodynamics.
a. (on a macroscopic scale) a function of thermodynamic variables, as temperature, pressure, or composition, that is a measure of the energy that is not available for work during a thermodynamic process. A closed system evolves toward a state of maximum entropy.
b. (in statistical mechanics) a measure of the randomness of the microscopic constituents of a thermodynamic system. Symbol: S
2. (in data transmission and information theory) a measure of the loss of information in a transmitted signal or message.
3. (in cosmology) a hypothetical tendency for the universe to attain a state of maximum homogeneity in which all matter is at a uniform temperature (heat death).
4. a doctrine of inevitable social decline and degeneration.
(from Dictionary.com)

Bear with me on this. While I did study the basics of Physics, it was in my senior year of high school about 25 years ago, so my understanding has become metaphorical over the years. Actually, my understanding probably started out metaphorical and generalized into inaccuracy. I love Physics and all the sciences, but I hit the Math wall hard, so this will be wonky at best.

I hate Entropy. As a control freak and perfectionist, uncertain, random, unusable energy is anathema. My tendency is always to specify and order as much as possible, to notice, classify, and remember, and Entropy, metaphorically at least, is an opposing force.  It seems to be in league with chaos and dissipation, my sworn enemies.

It's the phrase "a measure of the energy that is not available for work" that really singes my short hairs, and makes me wonder how the energy of mental concentration and focus are quantified.  Work is an applied transfer of energy, but it only counts as work if some change is made. As someone chronically short on energy -- I'm even an introvert, someone who social interactions drain of energy rather than stimulate -- the idea that there are physical forces withholding power built into the system just makes me feel exhausted.

Yes, I use the concept of Entropy as a rationalization of procrastination. When I cannot finish my work in a timely manner, I blame Entropy.  Yes, that's probably illogical to the point of insanity, but that's what's going on.

The forces of Entropy are winning.

January 06, 2012

Retro Ad: Enjoli

 

This was my favorite ad during my childhood. I loved it dearly when it first came out in 1978, and I've had the song (based on a Peggy Lee tune, I just found out) stuck in my head at some low simmering level for my entire existence since. I don't even know what the perfume smells like, and I don't care. My attraction for the ad was never about the perfume. I don't give a shit about perfume. In fact, I actively avoid smelling it. What the ad did was inculcate what I heard as rules for getting and keeping a man into my impressionable preteen gay boy brain.  

With one lyrical stanza.

You know it. Go ahead, sing along.
I can bring home the bacon,
fry it up in a pan,
and never, never let you forget you're a man.
Because I'm a woman.
Enjoli.

There we have the supposed eternal triumvirate of how to please a male: working, cooking, and fucking. At least according to Madison Avenue in the 1970s. The message is both progressively feminist and retrograde paternalist simultaneously, and horrifically fabulous.

Of course I didn't consciously realize the effect this commercial had on me until years later, when I started attending a gay youth group (GLYNY) on Saturday mornings in NYC at the age of 16. One morning as we all sat around in a large circle in the gay community center, one skinny teen drag queen, apropos of nothing, suddenly stood up and slowly recited the lyrics. He was wearing a gold lame gown and a gold headband. We let him have his moment in the spotlight. The noise the surrounding group of young gays made was my first introduction to our communal gay gasp -- that sound of approving shock followed by a roar of laughter. The baby queen calmly sat down again, and I understood that we'd all been brainwashed and there was probably no undoing the damage.

It had been done.
Enjoli.

January 05, 2012

Michele Bachmann Hoisted by Her Own Petard

Ding, dong, the witch is dead.

I'm deeply thrilled that Michele Bachmann had a poor showing in Iowa and had to drop out of the presidential race. Just looking into her crazy eyes always flooded my mind with sudden images of concentration camps, nuclear fireballs, and being forced to have sex while sitting on top of Faye Dunaway.  So good riddance.

While I would love to believe that the Iowans rejected her pandering, retro religiosity, outright lies, and hate spew, that doesn't explain why Rick Santorum did so well with the same voters.  After all, he preaches nearly the same closed-minded God-buggered inanity that she does. So why embrace the Frothy Mix and reject Crazy Eyes?
Michelle Goldberg over at the Daily Beast has an excellent article, Did Sexism Do Michele Bachmann In?, that offers a partial explanation. Basically, Goldberg suggests that the religious zealots Bachmann courted with her anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-reason, anti-progressive line of bullshit actually believed her . . . and sent the uppity woman packing back to the kitchen where she can support her obvious homo of a husband and not try to run the country.  I'm paraphrasing.
While I nurture my own misogyny (don't get me started on girls in gay bars), I would have voted for Hillary Clinton for president in a heartbeat.  And I'm really impressed with our senator in New York, Kirsten Gillibrand.  Because they are rational, forward thinking human beings.  Hillary gave one of the best gay rights speeches I've ever heard.  Not that that's enough of a reason to vote for her, but it helps.
My first thought on reading the headline "Did Sexism Do Michele Bachmann In?" was OF COURSE NOT.  It was her madness that did her in. But after reading Goldberg's article, I realized, yes, yes, ultra-conservative voters would indeed follow the sexism that Bachmann herself championed.
Ahh . . . karma's a bitch, ain't it?

January 04, 2012

Celebrity Crush: Ian Somerhalder

Ian Somerhalder (born December 8, 1978) has been one of my main celebrity crushes for a decade now, since his role as the snotty gay rich kid Paul Denton in the 2002 movie The Rules of Attraction.  I fell for his amazingly symmetrical features, intense blue eyes, and of course those arched eyebrows.  I love his slender, muscular body, too, but it's his attitude that really gets me, that beautiful troublemaker's intelligent rebellion with a cocky assurance despite obvious interior loneliness and insecurity.

Plus, in Rules of Attraction, he dances around in his underwear.  Irresistible.  I'm not made of wood, people!

He was also cute playing against Hayden Christensen in Life as a House.

Then, in 2004, Ian was cast as Boone in the TV show Lost, and I watched avidly . . . until Boone was killed in the 20th episode.  I gave up on that show immediately.

Happily, Ian is now on The Vampire Diaries, where I can watch his sexy cockiness as the undead Damon Salvatore to my heart's content.  It's also a good show, with breakneck plotting and complicated, likable characters.

Even if Ian does overuse his devastating smirk occasionally.

Ian's also a supporter of the LGBT youth group, The Trevor Project.  But supposedly dating his Vampire Diaries co-star, Nina Dobrev.  I heart Nina on the show, but if he ever gets sick of her . . .


I'm here, Ian.  Call me!





 


























January 03, 2012

Fabulously Magical Biblical Moment: The Crow of the Cock

And he said to him, "Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death." He said, "I tell you, Peter, the cock will not crow this day, until you three times deny that you know me."
LUKE 22:33-34

Then they seized him and led him away, bringing him into the high priest's house. Peter followed at a distance; and when they had kindled a fire in the middle of the courtyard and sat down together, Peter sat among them. Then a maid, seeing him as he sat in the light and gazing at him, said, "This man also was with him." But he denied it, saying, "Woman, I do not know him." And a little later some one else saw him and said, "You also are one of them." But Peter said, "Man, I am not." And after an interval of about an hour still another insisted, saying, "Certainly this man also was with him; for he is a Galilean." But Peter said, "Man, I do not know what you are saying." And immediately, while he was still speaking, the cock crowed. And the Lord turned and looked at Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said to him, "Before the cock crows today, you will deny me three times." And he went out and wept bitterly.
LUKE 22:54-62

January 02, 2012

Grammar Lesson: "Over" Versus "More Than"


While decrying the distinction in usage of "over" to mean "more than" is perhaps a losing battle (even a lost battle), I will never succumb to such imprecision in language.  They are both widely used interchangeably to signify "in excess of," but, simply put, "over" is a spatial term while "more than" is a term of quantification.  That is, "more than" is an expression of extra countable amount, while "over" expresses the concept of being relatively higher in physical space. 

For example, these are correct:

Wendell owned more than two hundred My Little Pony collectible figurines.

The dark cloud loomed ominously over the head of Lourdes.

NOT:

There are usually over twenty ingredients in mole sauce.

It's MORE THAN, people!  MORE THAN!  There are usually more than twenty ingredients in mole sauce!

Using "more than" instead of the erroneous "over" to signify a greater quantity has become popular because it is shorter, but rarely does using the correct "more than" make a sentence sound awkward.

When I was a children's book editor, I ended up specializing in coloring books, and often we would need to include a sales burst on the cover trumpeting our inclusion of stickers or temporary tattoos or window clings or an iron-on or whatnot.  Because of the smallish size of the burst (in a star shape), there wasn't room to fit "MORE THAN 50 FUZZY STICKERS!" comfortably.  However, I absolutely refused to let a book I worked on be released with "OVER 50 FUZZY STICKERS!" emblazoned on it.  We compromised by putting "50+ FUZZY STICKERS!" on instead.  A poor solution, but at least the burst text was still in the realm of quantity.

Yes, I understand that often "over" can be seen as a metaphorical usage, such as in these incorrect examples:

The temperature in India is over three hundred degrees Fahrenheit.

Mt. Washington is over 6,200 feet high.

In both examples, "more than" would still be correct, even though temperature climbs higher on a thermometer, and mountains rise into the sky.  We are still talking about quantity, not direct spatial relationships.  Mt. Washington is NOT over 6,200 feet high, or the mountain could be misread to start at 6,201 feet above sea level.

Yes, I realize that most books on grammar and style accept both usages.  They are wrong.  And they are pussies.  

So, to recap:

"Over" = comparitive spatial relationship signifying "above".

"More than" = quantitative expression meaning "in excess of".

Get it right, people.  Get it right.

January 01, 2012

Recipe: Soft Ginger Snap Cookies

I was told to bring cookies to a New Year's Eve party last night, and there's really no bakery in my neighborhood that I know that makes good cookies.  So I decided to bake some. I wasn't in the mood for my usual standbys, chocolate chip, basic butter cookies, or peanut butter cookies.  I thought about making cookies with a jam center, but they seemed a little precious to me.  After a search online for cookie recipes, I found something on AllRecipes.com, instructions on how to make soft ginger snap cookies.

The plan was to drink martinis at the party, so I figured ginger would go well with those cocktails.  And I was intrigued by the "soft" part of the description.  So the plan was a go.

Here's the basic recipe from the site:

Ingredients
  • 1 1/2 cups butter softened
  • 2 cups sugar
  • 2 eggs
  • 1/2 cup molasses
  • 4 1/2 cups all-purpose flour
  • 3 teaspoons baking soda
  • 2 teaspoons ground cinnamon
  • 1 teaspoon ground ginger
  • 1 teaspoon ground cloves
  • 1/2 teaspoon salt
  • 1/2 teaspoon ground nutmeg
  • Additional sugar
Directions
  1. In a mixing bowl, cream butter and sugar. Add eggs, one at a time, beating well after each addition. Beat in molasses. Combine the flour, baking soda, cinnamon, ginger, cloves, salt and nutmeg; gradually add to creamed mixture. Refrigerate for 1 hour or until dough is easy to handle.
  2. Roll into 1-in. balls; roll in sugar. Place 2 in. apart on ungreased baking sheets. Bake at 350 degrees F for 8-12 minutes or until puffy and lightly browned. Cool for 1 minute before removing to wire racks.
However, the recipe as listed makes 66 cookies! Happily, AllRecipes has a handy-dandy portion calculator that allows you to put in the amount of servings you'd like, and it recalculates the ingredients for you.  I put in 25 cookies, and it spat out the new amounts.  This led to some strange sizes, like 7/8ths of an egg.  But I figured it was close enough for my limited baking skills.

I also didn't know what "cream butter and sugar" meant, so that took a little research.  It turns out that "cream" just means blend and aerate the butter with a mixer, and add the sugar slowly.  Okay, I could do that.

So I went shopping.  My crappy supermarket up here in Washington Heights didn't have any small bottles of ground ginger for sale, and I ended up having to buy a 10 OZ container of ginger!  That's enormous.  I'm set for ginger for life.  I may have to search out other ginger recipes now because I am swimming in ginger.

Back at home, all the steps went fine, although I read "teaspoon" as "tablespoon" in my hurry and added too much baking soda, cinnamon, ginger, cloves, and nutmeg.  I scooped out as much as I could once I realized the mistake, but I was now deep in inexactitude.  Baking is a science!

I didn't have time to wait the full hour to refrigerate the dough -- I only had about 25 minutes to spare.  But the semi-chilled dough was easy to manipulate, rolling it into balls and coating them with sugar.

The actual baking went fine, too.  The trick, apparently, is to wait until the surface of each cookie cracks.  I think I did this right.

This is what they're supposed to look like (from AllRecipes):




Mine looked more like this (also from AllRecipes):



 


Oh, well. I don't know why mine didn't flatten out. The recipe says to cook until they're cracked and puffy, but mine stayed puffy. Perhaps that was because of my error with the baking soda. Anyway, they tasted good. Too much spice in them -- kind of a wallop of spice, actually -- but otherwise pretty tasty. If I ever try them again, I'll be more exact with the spice measurements!

Now I just have to figure out what to do with all this ground ginger.