Books
"Soon I Will Be Invincible" by Austin Grossman
The thing with authors, they can get really damn good before their first published novel. In retrospect, I feel bad for waiting the months I did for Austin Grossman’s debut novel, “Soon I Will Be Invincible” to come on paperback. It is the first novel in a while (and I read a lot of novel), that I read through as frivolously as I did with this one.
A few years ago I actually had a girl in my bedroom. There were 20 seconds spent between the time she entered my room and the time she, on her exit, called my a bloody nerd. I really like superheroes, and I really like books, and I really like having 30+ posters and 200+ holes in my drywall - a portion of my posters are used to cover up the holes from other posters. Naturally, my friend at the bookstore (Black Bond Books) recommended this to me. Naturally, I bought it.
It took me 2.5 chapters to notice the two different icons rotating through alternating chapters. The ray gun denotes a point-of-view from the hilariously-stereotypical villain, Dr. Impossible; wherein, the eyeball denotes the cyborg-heroine Fatale. It is a really well done use of two different point-of-views, their connection is not mysterious at all, a la Lost, but are very nicely placed.
Soon I Will Be Invincible doesn’t so much play with the clichés of superhero comics as bathe in their pulpy froth.
— Austin American-Statesman
I have tried my own, but this quote really does describe this novel to a tee. I described this book to a friend as a well written B-movie in superhero form. They aren’t pulling any a Deadpool here and talking to the reader, but the characters acknowledge and sometimes argue about their character cliches, even while being interrupted mid-evil-scheme monologue. It is almost Heroes-esque, in the sense that we see more of these lives and the group dynamics than we would in a regular comic.
Take an example from CoreFire, the main super-hero in the book is an all-American, straight A student who got his power saving his writer girlfriend. His myriad of powers are listed in Wikipedia by a link to Superman’s powers; invulnerable, superstrong, superfast, he can fly and he possesses Heat- and X-Ray vision. Wherein Mr. Mystic, the resident magician, also found his powers on a trip to Tibet, a la Dr. Strange. By far, Doctor Impossible was my favorite character in the story, as it just brought a hilarious side to supervillainy.
The novel is a homage to comic books, featuring a mad genius supervillain, Doctor Impossible, who suffers from “Malign Hypercognition Disorder” (”evil genius” syndrome).
— http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austin_Grossman
But it was during a discussion with a friend regarding the odds of Peter Petrelli regaining his body, I think I got the idea down. Stories are nothing to do with the beginning or the end. In the case of Peter, the idea is not just that he gets out, it is how. In the case of The (New) Champions, it was not a story of a bunch of archetypal meta-humans and superpowers, it was the personality behind them. As is the case with this genre in general, a good comic is not about the power in itself, but the power is used to add a more grandiose quality to the telling.
“Nicole Kidman sucks” says Forbes
I like to think myself an avid reader, just perhaps not the most exploratory one. A few years ago I was at a Scrabble party at a friends place and, in reaction to a debate about the latest Harry Potter novel, Phillip Pullman’s ‘His Dark Materials’ series came up. Not long after that I saw the initial trailer for the box-office flop Golden Compass; starring Nicole Kidman, and I was mad excited.
The dismal rating on IMDb, accompanied with that from RottenTomatoes embarassed many a dear fan. I was a dear fan.
In this case, I firmly believe the lack of (local) success of this film can be mostly blamed on the producers and a tamed down script. Regardless, this movie bombed, but luckily (for the sake of a possible sequel) it saw a few hundred million in profits overseas. That being said, this summers blockbuster, The Dark Knight, has made more than three times as much money with half the budget.
Where am I going with this? Forbes just named Nicole Kidman (Compass‘ Mrs. Coulter) the most overpaid actress in the business. Their format for this conclusion is to average the amount she made on her last three movies (The Golden Compass, Margot at the Wedding and The Invasion) in relation to how much she is being paid. Her movies have averaged a profit of $1 for every $1 she is paid (or £1, that works too).
This is my beef with Hollywood, as much a popular and trendy beef it is; actors and actresses are repeatedly hired for their popularity and not necessarily their actual talent. The existence of an actual ‘career’ for Jennifer Garner, Jennifer Lopez and Drew Barrymore are testament to this fact, but save for ‘Jenny on the Block’, I have no idea why any of these examples are even popular at all. Other cases would be Tom Cruise and his rich-boys-cult, Nicolas Cage’s history of actually decent movies and Will Farrel’s Legend. Diaz is just a damn babe.
The argument for Kidman seems to be the same one against remakes/ book movies. I was not even a sperm when the first two Body Snatchers movies came out, so any opinion in regards to Kidman’s The Invasion is completely theoretical. But I have seen enough book-movies and as aforementioned, I get wet of Phillip Pullman’s HDM series. As was the case with not properly using Kidman’s talent (argueable), so was the case of not properly using the source material that was given to them.
Thankfully, however, with the success of Nolan’s The Dark Knight, Hollywood is starting to take this genre seriously, and in the wake of Compass’s bomb, so have the writers for the (possible) Subtle Knife sequel.
Bill O’Reilly only likes it if its his OWN head up his ass
I have always found O’Reilly to be monstrously hilarious. Before getting into the misuse of the term indoctrination, I would first like to point out that of the many of American’s of which Billy speaks of, he seems to be unable to get any of them on his show. And do not worry about a Canadian commenting on American politics - this is the most un-political topic, coming from O’Reilly, the most un-political news caster.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This in·doc·tri·nate
Audio Help [in-dok-truh-neyt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –verb (used with object), -nat·ed, -nat·ing.
1. to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., esp. to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view.
2. to teach or inculcate.
3. to imbue with learning.
Personally, I think the way JKR approached this was intelligent. Intelligent, yet still British. I am double-minoring in Psych and Creative Writing, and during classes in the birthing of novella, we were often insisted to create our character long before hand. Colors, foods, nuances, personality, all of that stuff. Have it in our mind so that when we write for them, we can imagine how someone of those traits may act, and have them act accordingly. It was actually discussed how important a trait may be, even if it is one never revealed. A good writer would be able to hint at that in their character, so if they were exposed, it all just made sense. To an avvid reader, Ablus’ jock-fettish was a blip in the radar. A proverbial ping in the proverbial search engine of life. If that was the way the cookie crumbled, it didnt crumble very much.
But not as obvious (or hilarious) as Lance Bass, that was just LOL’s all around.
I find this entire backlash from Billy to be rather ironic. As am I, and as has been mentioned before, JKR is in fact a Christian. I do not know her stance on the matter, but my own is rather evident in this article. JKR is, also in fact,
“Rowling has received honorary degrees from St Andrews University, the University of Edinburgh, Napier University, and the University of Aberdeen“.
This information would leave one to assume her lack of moronicness, perhaps one manifested so well by Bill O’Reilly. And in this assumption of non-retardation, it would be safe to assume she knows how well her books are selling, and how huge an impact they have been, and will be, on children and their parents bank accounts alike. As well this, she knew what flack she would have aimed at the back of her head if she gave off the vibe of trying to introduce a homosexual character. Or maybe she didn’t, maybe it was a non-issue, or maybe even it was just never an issue, and she never though of a way to appropriately portray the character without such a stereotype bolstered to his favorite pair of socks.
What do I think she did with this revelation? I think she was just being honest. She wrote a character, she invented him in the vast Outspace within her mind and she, with faith in her own curosity, thought not to change a fact she lived with for a decade. And although no one but JKR and her Editor may know her reason, changing Dumbledore’s sexuality, as unknown a process it may be, would be incredibly discriminatory.
Dumbledore is as real to us fans, if not more, as he is to JKR. He is a great character, he did some great things and had some great sacrifices. This entire personality advocacy was never an attempt to ‘indoctrinate’, as O’Reilly praises so adamantly, it was to show to kids that even homosexuals can be good role models. Did his sexuality change or tarnish any of his character? No! The only part of his character that I now think of differently, is that I am now less than 100% certain he bonked McGonagall.
What’s a Christian to do with Harry Potter?
I was raised in a Christian home and went to a regular, public school. Being the cool, rebellious kid my form of ‘rebellion’ was, as I will describe in a later article, against ‘the church’. In the past few years I have become more adamant about my faith and have looked into it more, but most of all, more passionately defend it. I say that only to not let this article start off with the impression that I think myself some over-zealous religious nut bag. Although I am for certain a nut bag, it is not of the religious type.
I work at Christian family camp, I love it because it does not see Christianity as a religion, as I do not either. But of course, the staff is speckled with a few aforementioned zealots. The irony of these said people is that their passion jades their actual understanding of what they are offending or defending. It is for a sake of my own mental well being that I forgot this one zealots name. She was the kind of nut bag I was not. This is where I start off.
There is such an overwhelming and hilariously-disgusting, uneducated view on Harry Potter. There is an entire culture, it seems, that try their darned hardest to act like literary Jack Thompson’s. One day, near the 4th week of working at camp, I was sitting with a friend on the camp patio debating the awesomeness of the Hufflepuff house versus Ravenclaw. In popped in this very creepy ‘female’ of my age into out conversation. This was a year ago, so accept the following quotes as paraphrases only. That is a word and you know it. This woman epitomizes the Jack Thompsonite school of learning;
Jack Thompsonite: You don’t actually read the Harry Potter books, do you?
Andrew Littler: (holds up a book) what gave you that idea?
JT: Why?
AL: I am in love the characters.
JT: HAHA, how can you be in love with something that is not even real?
AL: Well I mean, not in love, they are just very well written.
JT: Don’t you know those books are Satanic?
AL: No I do not, but please tell me how, so I can post this on my Blog years from now.
JT: Its a book about magic! And witches and wizards! The Bible says not to do those things, as they are Satanic.
AL: Then CS Lewis is burning in Hellfire right now.
JT: No! Its okay because he is Christian.
AL: And Rowling is not? I mean, she goes to church and all…
<she ignores me for a while>
AL: Have you actually read the books? A book at all?
JT: I would never read such filth.
AL: So how do you apparently know so much about it?
JK: I read it on a website, a website that called it Satanic because they conjure the power of demons and talk to animals.
AL: Sothese opinions are not of your own? You just accept what anyone says without being the least bit smart about it? Lewis talks more of ‘demons’ than Rowling, and all of Narnia is about talking animals…
JT: But it’s a book about magic!
AL: Go read a damn book and you might see that is aint.
You get the idea… we live in a sad age where, as information is so easily attained, no one wants to spend the time checking the credibility of their source. This is a bit off topic, but look at all the kids ranting about the conspiracy of 9/11 after watching movies like Loose Change and Zeitgeist, although extremely controversial, they are basing their entire opinion on stuff like this. These days, opinions are based off of easily acquired ‘intelligence’ and that is exactly what this girl was doing. she adamantly ranted and attempted to tear apart the Potter series without actually knowing a thing about it. Mind you, these opinions are easy to spot and fun-as-hell to open up.
One of my main problems with ‘religious’ groups (Biblically, Christianity is seen as a Faith and not religion, so no sacrilege here) is that they seem to trust anything any other group says about something they don’t like. I mean, just Google “Christianity Harry potter” and you will see a whole list of uneducated bull.
I found this quote that zealots like to ignore, by Rowling herself;
“To me, the religious parallels have always been obvious,” Rowling said. “But I never wanted to talk too openly about it because I thought it might show people who just wanted the story where we were going.”
Rowling was right by this, and it was the basis for my opinion (that was right, so hah) that Harry Potter would come back from the ‘dead’. Jesus, anyone? The entire series had religious parallels, as said in the aforementioned quote.
But what about the magic? Go watch any movie involving time travel (Army of Darkness, anyone?) and any aspect of technology will be called ‘witchcraft’. As his car is nothing but mechanics, the magic in the Harry Potter is generally a mechanical magic - it just does stuff for you. And even when/ if Potter is busting some DnD mad-spellz… it’s bloody literature. Every spell has a reason. Everything forwards the story, theoretically. Ron Weasley failing his first try at Apparition was to show some of his character. Unbeknownst to the aforementioned Jack Thompsonite of before, it is not a book about Magic, it is a book about characters that just knowmagic.
I also love how American’s get a ‘dumbed-down‘ version of the series.