Callistonian.net

Rating:

If you have an ounce of curiosity in you, watch this video. It’s a heart-wrenching melodramatic MV cum short film. It’s a seven minute love story, a quintessential Korean tale with a sequel. If you don’t know what a quintessential Korean music video is—if you haven’t been forced to bear witness to KiSS’ Because I’m a Girl (여자이니까) then you must, in order to expand your cultural horizons, “continue reading this post” and spend less than ten minutes indulging in SeeYa’s “Shoes” (구두 kudu).

On second thought, it’s not that great. There’s something about it that’s annoying and cliché, but if it were original it wouldn’t be quintessential. It would lack some of that overbearing passion and insanity that drives characters in MVs like this (and its sequel). The final line of the chorus, “because I’m your girl, your girl who knows no one besides you,”* wouldn’t hit nearly as hard.

In the end, “Shoes” may seem like just another sad Korean MV. But it isn’t. Despite being saturated with drama, it remains poignant.

*
너 하나밖에 모르는 네 여자이니까 The translation isn’t exactly a literal one, but I think that it conveys the idea in English with more clarity than a lit. translation would.

Subs courtesy of WithS2. Watch an HQ version without Subtitles?

My desktop is not cluttered; 85% of my computer’s files are where they should be. 50% of these files are located in folders labeled sensibility: music is in the “Music” folder; videos are in the “Videos” folder; documents are in the “Documents” folder.

I’m not a digital slob, and I’ve never been one. I’ve just had occasional mishaps during which icons and files that I wanted but didn’t want to be bothered with piled up on my desktop… Those files were quickly relocated into a folder called something like “Crap.”

Now, I’m being particularly good. A “Crap” folder has yet to plague my 3-month-old laptop’s desktop. But a 3 month span of desktop cleanliness is not atypical because, as I said, I’ve never been a digital slob. My computers have always been organized.

What is atypical: videos in the “Videos” folder, music in the “Music” folder, &c. Videos have graced the hard drives of my computers for years. But, until now, I never thought it fit to put them in a “Videos” folder.  I thought that doing that would make things too boring. Three months ago, I was putting my videos in the “Ebooks” folder. Ebooks were kept in an ambiguously titled folder elsewhere.  My system of organization didn’t spring up accidentally. After mistakenly dropping one video in the “Ebooks” folder, I didn’t decide that the rest might as well go there too. I, intentionally, put them there. The decision was an improvement upon their previous location as they were no longer buried in a mess of whimsically titled folders. 

Long story short: more of my files are sensibly located than ever before.

However, I am still me. I’ve taken my love of unique organizational themes to my bookmarks (RSS feeds). Surprisingly, a few of the folders’ labels may make sense (sans explanation) to average people.  Legal sites are filed under “jurisprudents” and linguistic ones under “language.”

But the personal blogs I subscribe to are separated into four folders: “Marquise,” “Vicomtesse,” “Baronne,” and “Baronnet.” They’re ranked. Blogs I like the most are in the “Marquise” folder; the ones I like the least are in “Baronnet.” I have all sorts of complicated reasons for why I’ve used feminine French ranks of nobility to organize blogs and as to why certain ranks are missing but I suppose the real question is: why must I complicate things? I can put videos in the “Videos” folder but asking me to sort blogs into categories like “Blogs I Read Daily” and “Blogs I Sort of Like” is asking too much.  I feel compelled to attach partly whimsical and highly symbolic titles to them … and to other things. :)

On the subject of the last entry: I will answer your questions. Thanks a ton for asking them.

Disclaimer: This is a housekeeping entry. It is not an exercise in fine writing. Please, excuse the mess.

In the interest of allowing my readers to learn more about me as a person, rather than me as a blogger, and because I fear nothing, and show everything…ask me a question. Any question you want. - Amanda

I’m following the trend that Amanda began—ask away. Questions and answers will be added to my Ask & Answer page.

two. I will blog about something other than nonsense later. Who’d have thought, right? Suggestions for blog topics or articles are welcome—if there’s anything that you want to hear me go on about, let me know!

three. Also, this layout isn’t quite right. I want to make another one with the same theme of Versailles. Suggestions? Criticisms?

It is harder, sometimes, to review a glorious book—to convey its power and influence without relying on suspicious adjectives. Good books can be slotted, characterized, explained; great books often cannot. I believe Geraldine Brooks’ new novel, March, is a very great book. I believe it breathes new life into the historical fiction genre, the borrowing- a- character- from- the- deep- past phenomenon, the old I- shall- tell- you- a- story- through- letters tradition. I believe it honors the best of the imagination. I give it a hero’s welcome. - Chicago Tribune

The Chicago Tribune puts it best but—yes, I attempted to review March. My review is here.

five. I have an exam on Thursday. Wish me luck!

six. Things of interest:

1. After the taser incident at the university in Florida, the domain donttazemebro.com was registered.
2. The Prehistory of Emoticons

Rating:

Geraldine Brooks’ March is a poignant novel saturated with beautiful words. If you were to read it and 9,999 other books during your lifetime and if you were only able to remember 100 of them well—March would be among the one percent that you didn’t forget. It sticks with its readers: it seeps into their bones and sporadically hijacks their thoughts.

March is about a Northern idealist, a father, who goes south to serve as a chaplain during the Civil War. It’s one of my favorite novels; I love it to death. It’s brilliant. I’m recommending it to everyone. Historians and lovers of literature will cherish March the most but, everyone reading this review should read March.

Unfortunately, March is not perfect. I would hate for someone to read it on my recommendation and then become disappointed because I went on about it like some sort of rabid fan. So, right now – I’m saying, don’t get your hopes up. Just read it and give it a chance. Remember, it’s not that great but, it’s definitely a novel that you should check out.

Less than pleasant things about March:

1. March is fan-fiction.
2. The protagonist is a man of character, a role model. He’s almost perfect. He’s a Mary Sue.
3. March is a little preachy.

Also, despite its pretty words and beautifully crafted sentences, the first chapter is dull. However, the second was moving and I had leaky eyes before it ended.

Now, let’s get serious. March was awarded the Pulitzer. It’s more than just a good book. The three things listed above as faults are completely understandable and not truly faults because, the protagonist was modeled after a real person. But if you read March without knowing that and without knowing the history behind the novel, the story feels kind of weird. It’s like, Who is this person and what is he doing in the 19th century? He doesn’t belong. This is insanity and incredibly unrealistic! To those screaming about it being unrealistic, I say: it’s not. It’s just atypical; it’s a story about a radical.

Interestingly enough, historical figures—radicals, of course—appear as characters in March. Emerson, Thoreau, John Brown, and Gerrit Smith are mentioned in the novel. Their presence is pleasant but it’s also a little strange.

A randomly chosen paragraph to give you a feeling for the novel’s language:

The waste of it. I sit here, and I look at him, and it is as if a hundred women sit beside me: the revolutionary farm wife, the English peasant woman, the Spartan mother- “Come back with your shield or on it,” she cried, because that was what she was expected to cry. And then she leaned across the broken body of her son and the words turned to dust in her throat.

In conclusion and in a word, March is inspiring. Give it a chance; read it.

I hate my writing style. It’s not pretty; it’s too colloquial. I hate it. The question, of course, is: how do I change? I’m begging you for help and advice.

I want to write well.

I’m tired of boring sentences and awkward paragraphs—why don’t my words flow? I’m a Pisces. I should be eloquent.

Some of you may believe that my writing style is fine and that this rant is irrational if not retarded. I don’t wish to play the perfectionist card but, to you, I say: I want to write better; there are millions who write better than me; do you understand how frustrating not being able to put simple things into words is?

I read grammar books for fun. I’m subscribed to language blogs and word of the day sites. I have a word journal. I’m studying three foreign languages. I aspire to be something of a lawyer- can’t I be a bit obsessive about this? Shouldn’t I write well?

Help?

FYI, I’m ranting because I’m desperately trying to review Brooks’ March but, it’s killing me. I can’t put a decent sentence together.