Christopher J. Fraser

This is why I won’t be posting properly for a while....

Thu, 11 Mar 2010 20:50:54 +0000

This is why I won’t be posting properly for a while. Christ, it’s killing me.

What's originality?

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 19:19:00 +0000

I just read a fascinating article by Matthew Kajcienski, a man responsible for ABC’s Good Morning America theme amongst a series of adverts and other minor orchestral work. In it, he discusses the relationship between composers and orchestrators. I can’t really write it better than he does (and it’d be arrogant to do so) so here’s an excerpt (rest of the post below the cut):

It is general practice for composers working in TV to use orchestrators mostly due to the incredibly heavy workload and tight deadlines. Many composers I work with and respect define a vast majority of the score details, instrumentation, and secondary lines before handing it off to the orchestrator. The orchestrators are often paid well for their services, but in many cases where the orchestrator has done much more than simply “enhance” or “realize” the score, they are denied a fair percentage of the writer’s share (if given a percentage at all). In these cases, the orchestrator might create musical elements to support the original material by a composer including expanding sections of music and enhancing harmonies/voicings, as well as distributing harmonic material, lines and motifs from the composer among individuals and/or sections of the orchestra or ensemble. (via A Composer’s View)

Although I’m approaching this from the perspective of a creative generally, rather than specifically a composer, I get this. Perhaps the best example is a story Joe wrote a while back called “Peter” (read it here, or buy the book if you’re feeling generous). As an idea, it was fantastic - full of larger-than-life characters, a series of frankly hilarious situations and completely original ideas. This is where Joe excels - he doesn’t think exactly the same as everyone else, and that means he comes up with fantastic ideas that no-one else can.

The one problem? Joe can’t write. OK, no - that’s an exaggeration. He can write, and you feel the sentiment in what he’s writing if you’re attuned to it (like I inevitably am, having read and edited the vast majority of his stuff), but the general reader is likely to be fairly dismissive of it at first glance, or not understand large chunks. He makes spelling and grammar mistakes (oh, the grammar mistakes) but the core ideas are there, and they’re a lot better than what I could ever achieve off the top of my head.

That said, I don’t think what I did with “Peter” was insignificant - to all intents and purposes, I rewrote the story. By the time I was finished with it, pretty much every sentence had been rewritten, using the same general vocabulary and the exact same plot, but in a form that people could understand and hear properly if it was read out. The way it reads now is a sort-of hybrid of our voices - a little too visceral and imaginative to be me, but a little too eloquent to be Joe. If you read Joe’s stuff raw, you can see that it’s definitely his work, but if you read what I write, my stamp’s there, and fairly relevant.

At the time, and even now, I consider it Joe’s work. If it was laid out and published as a standalone text, I’d be perfectly happy for it to be considered as “by Joseph O’Brien”. But my work as an editor went far beyond what an editor usually does - rather than cut out sections, return it with notes saying “change this” and harass him for deadlines, I turned it into another text entirely. Essentially, I was the orchestrator for Joe’s work - I added in those vocal harmonies, created the musical elements to make it sound right and added in motifs that had somehow been left behind early on. I made it complete.

Kajcienski uses a dispute between the composers Alex Wilkinson and Joel Goldsmith, two people who worked on the soundtrack for Stargate SG-1, as a starting point, and if Joe and I were creative rivals and were selling thousands of copies, our situation might be a little different. But at the time, we were just looking to create something nice and get it out to as many people as possible, in the hope that they might enjoy it. We weren’t even looking to make any money from it - so far, we’ve sold 100 copies, and while that might sound like a lot it equates to roughly £8 in royalties (we need £20 before they send us a cheque). On Google Books, where we’re hosting the whole book for free, it’s received over 10,000 views - again, not a ridiculous amount, but it’s something. In our own strange way, we’ve left a mark, and so ideas of “originality” become redundant. It’s why we titled the whole book as “by Christopher Fraser and Joseph O’Brien”, rather than struggling over individual pieces, because the whole work is based on a symbiotic relationship, and to attempt to quantify our shares is just absurd.

Want to listen to Alice in Wonderland? For free?

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 18:21:00 +0000

Want to listen to Alice in Wonderland? For free?:

From Pie Bird:

Blackstone Audio is offering free downloads of Lewis Carroll’s Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland (unabridged & read by Michael York) now and until March 16, 2010!

No, you’re right. I’m not a product blogger, and while I’ve just joined the wonderful community of seededbuzz (that has a certain niche in asking bloggers to promote products) this one seems fairly safe. What’s more, the book isn’t just read by anyone - it’s Michael York, a man who amongst other films has starred in Cabaret, Logan’s Run, and, um, Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery. And it’s not like Audible, where you have to cancel a free trial offer after a week or so - this is just free stuff.

Expires on March 16th, so hurry it up over there. And kids, remember - however much Tim Burton might appeal to your angst-ridden goth-kid sensibilities, this came first. Respect it.

In sort-of Alice-related info, there’s a growing theme of people seeing what can be done around the movie’s release. Not sure how I feel about it all - especially given that a tea party does not a batshit-insane Lewis Carroll make - but if you want an example of the kind of things people are focusing on, Niki Turner has a list of examples and ideas. (OK, I’ll be honest, this is just to fit with the criteria on seededbuzz - I have to link to the original post and one other - but it sort of makes sense when you think about it).

Maintenance

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 18:11:14 +0000

Much of the site’s going to be offline for 24 hours starting about 9pm GMT tonight. I’m switching hosting packages to something more affordable, so images, some of the audio, and a few other things here and there (like the custom font headers) will be squiffy until then. It should still be readable (and the Tumblr dashboard shouldn’t suffer any ill effects) but until tomorrow, bear with me.

Another view of the York sunset, this time with the sun behind...

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 06:03:49 +0000

Another view of the York sunset, this time with the sun behind me.

Look, I know it’s a flaw, and I accept that, but if you can’t take shoddily-edited pictures of sunsets and the occasional embarrassing picture of my face, you might as well leave now. I can’t type a zillion words in EVERY post.

CJF.

Gratuitous Picture of You Wednesday (I’m growing to hate...

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 05:45:25 +0000

Gratuitous Picture of You Wednesday (I’m growing to hate abbreviations) - Spastic Elmo/It’s 5am and I haven’t slept edition.

Late nights compel me to do stupid things. And besides, I haven’t done one of these in a while. Normal service back soon.

Tron Legacy - New Trailer You know what? Fuck all movies for the...

Tue, 09 Mar 2010 04:31:40 +0000

Tron Legacy - New Trailer

You know what? Fuck all movies for the rest of time, ever, because this looks like it has it all. Jeff Bridges in two roles, one of which is evil and dramatically de-aged to make him look twenty years younger? Check. Olivia Wilde, known for playing Thirteen in House MD and generally just being a sex icon, clad from head to toe in luminescent latex? Check. Michael Sheen playing an obviously deranged man, complete with a ridiculous white wig and a manic look in his eye? Check. In fact, the only thing this film really needs is to be at the IMAX, in 3D.

Oh, wait.

Fucking hell, I cannot wait for this film. Yes, I’m a child of the nineties, but that doesn’t mean I can’t love everything about this film.

Linguistic accuracies and JESUS CHRIST WHY?

Tue, 09 Mar 2010 04:05:00 +0000

I like language.

Fuck me, that’s a vague statement. What I should say is that I like the little curiosities about language. The sort of thing you study in elementary linguistics… apart from a bit on Ferdinand de Saussure and even less on Jaques Derrida, I’m completely ignorant. This is, to an extent, deliberate. I like having an element of mystery there with language, and studying it at a surface level rather than exposing the basic psychological impulses keeps that level of intrigue there.

Below the cut, I’m going to talk with no intellectual backup whatsoever about the complications of an atheist using phrases like “oh my God” and the thing that really turned me onto amateur linguistics. It might be boring. I’ve got no real filter for that, sorry.

The thing that really turned me on to amateur linguistics (if that’s not a field, then I’m making it one) is the discovery of a remote tribe called the Pirahã (pronounced pee-da-HAN) and their language system, which is still threatening to contradict ideas like universal grammar, one of the basic tenets of modern linguistic theory. The Pirahã have no number system, no idea of recursion (that is, the ability to say “the man wearing the boiler suit is walking down the street” - they’d have to say “the man is wearing a boiler suit. The man is walking down the street”), and a load of other curiosities unearthed by Dan Everett, an American linguistics professor who might be the only outsider ever to get close to deciphering how they think. There’s a superb New Yorker article on it here - it’s long, but if you’ve got something like Instapaper then it’s fairly manageable.

I’m particularly interested on how external factors shape language, and this is where I’m getting to the title of this post. Note - I’m thick. There’s no way I can treat this with any degree of credibility, and all of this is just introverted speculation. So don’t quote this, whatever you do. I’m just thinking aloud.

I’m an atheist. Haven’t always been - up until the age of around 14, I was a passive Christian, meaning I swore allegiance to God at Scouts (fuck you, yes, I went to Scouts, and what I lost in credibility was made up with a bunch of great friends that I promptly lost as soon as I left), went to carol services and sang along, and even accepted our school nativity play at face value. That said, I can’t remember who I played. Even my best friend - and by that, I mean the one I pretty much never fell out with - was a strict Christian, who went to Church every Sunday and said grace at mealtimes. And when we finally split and went our separate ways, it was more because I was falling in with a different crowd than any religious conflict. I didn’t really question faith until midway through high school.

What I’m essentially saying is that the language of Christianity played a part in my early developmental upbringing, even if I was never particularly devout. Of course, now I’m about as radically opposed to religion as you can get, but there’s one part of me that still slips in subconsciously. I’d like to quote the last line of a previous post at you:

Thank God I never enabled comments on here.

What am I doing in saying that? At the same time, what am I saying when I say “Jesus Christ” at someone’s stupidity, or curse under my breath the words “holy Mary mother of Jesus” when I stub my toe? Am I really thanking the divine Lord for granting me with the wisdom to keep comments disabled? Am I hoping that J.C. might reach down and endow my compatriot with some newfound intelligence? And am I reaching out to the Virgin Mary to soothe my aching foot?

To state the obvious, of course I’m not. I’m saying it because “thank God” has a more powerful linguistic force than “it’s rather fortunate that”, because “you’re a fucking idiot” is a little more offensive, and because doing what feels more instinctive and screaming “OW, MY FUCKING TOE” might arouse the attention of others - a short burst of quieter words with a greater cultural force is unlikely to get me locked up for causing public disorder.

Why do they have their own special significance to me, then? After all, I’m an atheist - the ideas of God, the virgin Mary and even Jesus Christ have no meaning, surely? The answer is yes and no. Yes, in the respect that on a fully-conscious level they don’t. If I reason through every single one of those statements, I will happily come to the conclusion that my use of them is logically redundant. My atheism deprives these words of their meaning, and as such they’re not even the equivalent of “fuck” - I can accept every single meaning of the word “fuck”.

So why do I use these words? Especially “Jesus”, one I use with alarming frequency? Although it’s a little odd to say this, I still don’t think it’s a problem that I do, and it’s not just because the devoutly religious would object to my usage of it in the context I’m using it. I mean, sure, that’s fun, but it’s not my primary reason.

Let’s go back to basics. We don’t learn language like dictionaries, and you’d have to be thick to think so. A particularly obnoxious student in my seminar group said a while back that the process of deconstructing a word was a futile exercise, and ended up reducing ideas of absolute semantics (he didn’t use that phrase) to a meaningless endeavour. Now, at the time he was speaking completely out of turn and injecting nothing into the argument, but here it makes some sense - it helps to start by looking at words as collections of sounds, phonemes and morphemes with no meaning behind them. It’s only the process of injecting meaning into them that makes them, well, meaningful, and if you go from that approach you’ll see why I feel justified in saying things like “thank God” and “Jesus Christ” in the way that I do.

This is awful of me, but I’m going to turn to the OED here and look up “Jesus”. Sure, the primary definition (even if inaccurate) is “the proper name” - i.e. what you might call someone (we’re talking definitions, not origins here), but the second definition it gives is, sure enough, “an oath or as a strong exclamation of surprise, disbelief, dismay, or the like”. Yelling “Jesus!” when someone leaps out in front of you is so embedded in our cultural vocabulary that the original meaning as an absolute seems somewhat redundant. Sure, it doesn’t really correlate with the first definition, and the first person to use it in such a manner probably had very conscious and deliberate reasons for doing so, but it’s part of our cultural subconscious now and that’s nothing to be ashamed of. Sure, it makes language messy and relativistic, and opens it up to any sort of evolution, but then that’s what language is - it’s not exactly a rulebook, it’s just what people make it.

You don’t need to justify saying “Jesus” as an exclamation by saying “I’m making a blasphemous reference to our almighty God” because, in truth, it’s irrelevant to what you just said. You said it as an exclamation, so that’s what it means. Stop being ashamed of yourself.

Of course I wish that I had a different series of cultural expressions in my vocabulary - ones connected to religion tend to be a little messy, given half the population still subscribe to the other definition, which is why I’ll favour cursing over blasphemy any day. Saying “fucking shit” might draw disapproving looks, but it’ll only ever provoke the expression “don’t take the Lord’s name in vain” from scatomancers (and the last time that was in accepted print form was in the 1800’s, so I don’t think I’ve got anything to worry about). The most you can say about me saying “cunt” is that it’s rude to say so, and whatever you do you can’t back it up. Yes, it’s rude. I used it to be rude. The two align rather beautifully, don’t you think? Whereas, with the other, it’s more along the lines of “Good God!” “Don’t take the Lord’s name in vain.” “I’m an atheist.” “You’re still taking the Lord’s name in vain.” And so on, until you get to the end of this post.

So, using the phrase “Jesus wept” when I hear the enthusiasm people dedicate to discussing who got off with who last night? It takes a lot of qualification, but it’s still justified. I’m not taking the Lord’s name in vain; you’re just confused over definitive variation.

Finally - a sunset in York

Mon, 08 Mar 2010 00:11:01 +0000

I’m hopelessly simple when it comes to natural phenomena, and like what everyone else does: sunsets are stunning, an cloudless night sky full of stars is just perfect, and when I saw the moon reflecting off the sea in Scarborough, I felt absolutely, totally at peace. Sure, I’m unoriginal, but at least I’m in touch with nature.

My university, of course, has none of these. There are too many buildings on campus to see the sun in the last hour or so of it falling, too much light pollution to really make out anything but the brightest stars, and I’m an hour’s train ride away from the sea (and the “lake” we have isn’t great, given it’s got a sediment on the bottom of about two metres’ worth of duck shit). In fact, generally the university’s a perfect example of appearances being deceiving - you can’t even sit on the grass, given the fact that you’ll probably sit on what’s left of a bird’s lunch if you do. The university thought it’d be great to import a load of birds to make it seem more “natural” - in fact, all they really did was force everyone indoors.

This all granted, that’s just the university. I’ve been struggling to find a decent place to watch the sun go down since I started here, and I think I finally found it. Today was a day without a cloud in the sky, and I woke up at 4pm (don’t ask), so as soon as I was showered and dressed I headed out to the Millennium Bridge and sat there, Gil Scott-Heron in my ears, and from a point slightly higher than the rest of what’s probably one of the flattest cities in the UK, I saw a sunset go from blue, to orange, to yellow, then a strange sort of lilac, and finally to blue once more, a few shades darker than before.

Seeing it recalled that same feeling of sitting on the pier in Scarborough - at that time, only a couple of people were there to see it too, and I couldn’t help but wonder why. We’re a nation of people forced indoors by our own fear of the elements, or we sanitise our love of the outdoors by playing within stadia and walled courts - there’s no real sense of openness or exploration in the ages between 12 and 40, and that’s a shame.

Temporary measures/a load of really shitty questions answered

Sun, 07 Mar 2010 23:42:27 +0000

(image via this rather beautiful blog. Check it out if you like Paris, or vintage-style photography)

It had to come to an end, I suppose. Effective now, I’ve disabled anonymous “questions” from the Tumblr Ask feature. The reason for this is one you might expect if you’ve been reading my previous posts - I’ve had a bit of a backlash from the previous post about the Tumblr user curioushair. Of course, this by itself isn’t an issue. I welcome criticism, when it’s helpful or productive. Needless to say, none of the ten or so anonymous comments I got had either of these qualities. Well, perhaps one. But that was still out of context - informative on an unrelated level.

To address a few general issues, then, plus a couple of my own, and then hopefully we can all get back to normal (all below the cut - come on, I’m not going to keep spamming people with this):

There’s a certain attitude I subscribe to that can only be described as “humble confidence”. Sound like a contradiction in terms? It isn’t - being humble isn’t necessarily the same as being modest. But if you’ve read this before, you’ll have noticed that when I’m not spouting my views on things I’m deriding myself for being an idiot. To an extent, this has an element of validating my own position - my old blog had all the same confidence, but never once a concession of infallibility. That, to me as my nineteen-year-old self (or seventeen when I started this) is fairly important - that I always know that I’m not always going to be right. In fact, the times when I do get it right are wonderful, isolated events.
I went through a good few years of my life knowing that I was wrong and being totally silent because of it, then I realised that everyone else spouting on a regular basis was just as wrong as I was. Sure, there’s a bit of nihilism in there, but it’s the healthy kind, I think - a sort that finally lets me get through my life and not be hopelessly introverted.
Re: age and inexperience - I don’t think you necessarily need either to have the right to self-expression. And you’d have to be a fascist to suggest that I do. In fact, I think they said I’d have to have the literary skill and intelligence of Henry Kissinger to have the right to an opinion, which pretty much excludes every blogger that’s ever existed. Well… most.
Narcissism - I think loving myself is the best thing that’s ever happened to me, especially given that it didn’t have the feared consequence of becoming self-obsessed. I still know that I’m utterly insignificant in comparison to the scale of the universe and the probable alien life forms that are stupefyingly more advanced than I am, but I’m still happy with my lot and who I am because not being so is just depressing. As well as the introversion thing, I’ve gone through being self-loathing, and it’s not exactly fun. I can see why that might be an attitude that someone who spends their time leaving snarky comments on blogs might hate, but… um… fuck you.
To the person who informed me that only 5% of women actually experience a change in emotional balance when they’re “on”, I absolutely don’t doubt it. But women still use it as an excuse, and as long as it’s prevalent in culture I won’t feel unjustified in making jokes about it.
The the other person who informed/reminded me that women on their periods are more likely to be clutching a hot water bottle or breaking into a pharmacy (the image of both combined is hilarious, by the way) than getting pissed off at everything… good point. Oversight on my part.

OK, think that’s about it. I’m aware there aren’t ten answers there, but all of the questions were pretty much the same. Now that the chronic bitchiness is out of the way, here’s a couple of questions unrelated to the scandalous creature I am that I never got round to answering:

What I thought about the Alex Reid/Katie Price wedding: Who’s Alex Reid?
What music I like: everything that sounds nice and not tired. So exclude hip-hop, punk, death metal and most country music. I say most because Conor Oberst fits in that last category, and I like him.
My thoughts on the word “darling” and its connotations: I’m less culturally sensitive to connotations. I think I’d use it to both genders equally - as a casual term of affection - but I’m aware that not everyone does.

I think I’m done.

I might re-open the anonymous question thing in future. It’s a shame that it had to be spoilt, really - about 60% of the questions I was getting were anonymous, and they used to be intelligent and thought-provoking. But it just takes a few to spoil the party, shit on the decorations and roll around on the floor like spastic puppies, and that’s what they’ve gone ahead and done.

Thank God I never enabled comments on here.

Machinarium is god-darned beautiful

Sun, 07 Mar 2010 04:23:21 +0000

No, that’s not an illustration for a book all about Greek robots, it’s a screenshot from the frankly wonderful point-and-click computer game Machinarium. Woah! Hold on a second. I know, I said the words “computer” and “game” in the same sentence, and that alienates a lot of people. But calm down. This isn’t like the rest.

For a start, it’s just beautiful to play. The whole thing runs in (wait for it) Flash Player, which basically means that unless your computer’s from the dark ages it’ll run smoothly. There’s no loading screens, no intrusive menus - in fact, there are points where you just want to sit there and discover the scene before you without clicking anything.

Once you get beyond it, though, you realise how expansive the world of Machinarium is. It extends for dozens of screens in every direction, and old bits you’ve seen before turn up in the most unexpected of places. Throw in a bunch of puzzles, all of which are dementedly mind-boggling and yet wonderfully intuitive, and you’ve got the making of a point-and-click game like they did in the nineties. The best part? They only released this last year.

If you haven’t already, check it out. It’s download only, and there’s versions for both PC and Mac - in fact, given it uses a web-standard plugin, this might be the most compatible game produced yet.

"I’m not a radical feminist, but fuck you. I could take the arrogance up to this point. So..."

Sun, 07 Mar 2010 03:52:00 +0000

“I’m not a radical feminist, but fuck you. I could take the arrogance up to this point. So yeah, I appreciate your blog but I don’t really want it on my dashboard.”

- - curioushair

I’ve been smiling all day - only good people have enemies, as David Tennant (channelling the spirit of Casanova) once said. Reference: this post. Yep, that’s right - the one where I second the view that Twilight promotes attitudes that force women to submit to domestic violence, and that’s why it should be avoided. I’m such a misogynist.

Goodbye, curioushair. You’ll be missed.

Note: in fairness, this was the same post that I suggested the not-very-popular view that there’s always a dominant sex in society, taking the idea of the dominant and submissive in sexual relationships to a societal conclusion, and made a joke in poor taste and knowledge about women on their periods setting off nuclear missiles if they were in power (to counterbalance it, I was quite happy to admit that men are and always have been slowly laying waste to the world). Which, in retrospect, is probably poor taste, but most good jokes are.

Second note: by all means, I have no real reason to show any sort of antagonism to this specific Tumblr user (beyond her insults, which I usually deserve). I just thought I’d share my joy with you, even if it is of a cynical kind. Every time I see the word “arrogant”, I read it as “confident”, and that to me is a wonderful sign.

Global Communication - 12:18 Named after the length of the...

Sat, 06 Mar 2010 20:26:21 +0000

Global Communication - 12:18

Named after the length of the track, 12:18 is an ambient masterpiece. Listening to it, you feel like you’re sitting on the shore of some alien planet, with the waves slowly washing in, and huge pendulous planets sitting on the horizon as the suns go down. There’s no-one there but you, and it’s as peaceful as you’ll ever be. Or, if you’re autistic, then it’s got smooth string arrangements, a high vocal riff and synths that fade in and out. But it’s still a beautiful piece. Makes reading about the ethics of abortion that bit more pleasant.

The appeal of Twishite

Sat, 06 Mar 2010 04:46:00 +0000

I’m just going to come out and say it: I think I like the Twilight movie series.

I’ll just let that one sink in for a few seconds, before I embark on a long list of qualifications that I hope are going to make that statement even remotely acceptable. Feeling OK? Not planning to start leafing through the phone books of every region in the UK, desperately searching through the thousands of people with my surname so you can just come and slit my wretched throat? … good. Reasons to stave off lighting those torches below the cut.

First up, context. I’ve just finished watching New Moon, the second in the series. That’s why I’m posting this now - although I’ve referenced it before, even given the first in the series an earth-shatteringly bad review, I’m now at a point where I can consider it with the same knowledge as the screaming teenage fans. Fuck, I’ve even read the first book and the Wikipedia articles on the rest. Speaking of reading, by all means I am not talking about the books here. There’s nothing whatsoever that can justify Stephanie Meyer’s awful writing, and I’d prefer that it be kept that way. Like I said, I’ve read the first, and that’s supposedly the best of the series - it was just bad. I’m all for getting kids into reading, but if you must, give them Harry Potter. In tandem with reading that miserable excuse for a book, I imagined Stephanie Meyer vomiting into a blender, whisking it up, then dementedly scrawling words with her own sick into the kitchen tiles. For me, it was the only explanation for how she’d managed to produce something so completely unpublishable.

So, um, yeah. Definitely not the books.

And don’t get me wrong - there’s a lot that’s wrong about the films. I said a while back that it was like a pilot for a laughably silly TV show, and I still stand by that. I’d also argue that the seemingly contractual obligation to show Taylor Lautner’s naked torso every five seconds is gratuitous at best. And as for the moral message, if there even is one… at one point I found myself tracing on the screen with my finger the words “WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU, YOU STUPID TWAT” as Kristen Stewart’s character decides to go off with Robert Pattinson. I mean, Christ, Bella. The guy’s deliberately playing the part badly, and it’s obvious to anyone (apart from the screaming teenage fans, but I don’t trust anyone who screams). No-one wants to date a bad actor, least of all spend the rest of their eternal life with them.

There are other obvious objections. Idiotic love story aside, there are clear moral issues at stake. The fact that there’s a girl in a clear domestic violence situation is all but brushed over. There’s an argument over the nature of the soul, but it’s never presented as more than an “I-think-this-you-think-that-let’s-vote” approach. Not that I expect serious philosophical inquiry from the Twilight series, but there are ways of treating issues without coming across as a pseudo-intellectual douchebag. I mean, if there’s anything I’ve learnt after blogging for seven years, it’s that. In some respects, I’m still learning, but on the other hand I’m not grossing millions at the box office. And of course, on top of everything, there’s the fans. You cannot tell me that if we executed every Twilight fan today, the world would not be a better place. That sounds cruel, but it’s true, backed up by pure solid reason, grounded in scientific fact*.

So there we go: I’ve stated the case for the opposition. And looking at it, it’s fucking solid. If anything, it’s why my appreciation for the film’s shaky at best. All I’m doing is saying that there are redeeming features; as to whether or not they outweigh the massive cons is a matter for debate. But there are reasons to like it, and I’ll try and give a few.

Kristen Stewart. OK, so this isn’t her best, but I’m going to say that she does an alright job in these films. I’ll be honest, I’m not completely unbiased here, given that if I ever had anything close to a celebrity crush it would be on her, but I honestly believe that past all the retarded lip-biting and melodrama, she can act. They could have had a worse lead actress.
The villains. Not all of them. That blond guy in the first one was a bit shit, and was obviously the slightly hunky male to dominate the film until The Wolfman properly came along, but Michael Sheen as the head of the Royal Vampire Family or whatever they’re called is charmingly camp and suave. And despite being a total stereotype, the black guy with the dreads who gets eviscerated (played by Edi Gathegi) is fun while he lasts. Even Dakota Fanning is finally playing a role in which she isn’t intensely annoying, and that comes as a real shock.
The music. It’s not perfect, it’s not soaringly beautiful, but it gets it right. There’s enough pop culture stuff in there to keep it upbeat and cool, and strings where they’re appropriate. If the directorial style of the film is a bit off, the music makes up for it - there are a good deal of stylised riffs in both that (while you’re conscious of them) just work.
It’s funny, even if it doesn’t mean to be. Case in point: the scene in the first film, where Bella walks into the classroom, and Edward looks on moodily as the fan blows (her scent) from behind her, is either intensely serious and meaningful (hello again, fans) or pants-wettingly funny. There’s a reason why that initial exchange is so ridiculous - Pattinson has the look on his face that says to any guy “I just came, but keep cool”. And there are other stupid moments. Kevin Smith highlighted the brilliant one where Wolfboy pulls off his shirt to wipe blood off Bella’s face, and there’s a ridiculous flourish where he practically ripples his manchild abs. Again, divided audience - as Smith puts it, the room gets “moist”, but viewers like me can’t help but laugh.
Anna Kendrick. Know who I’m talking about? Of course you don’t, or at least not in the context of the film. She plays Jessica, the normal person that Bella completely fails to be friends with. Being honest, it’s a shame Kendrick doesn’t get a bigger part, because if she proved anything with Up In The Air, it’s that she’s a great actress. Still, it’s nice to see someone of actual merit playing a part down to a tee - where Kristen Stewart is making the best of a bad situation, Kendrick gets those rare moments where the screenwriters got it right.
Ashley Greene. Well, I am male. I have to balance up serious art appreciation with the consideration of tits.
The prospect of the fourth one. This needs a bit of qualification if you haven’t done your research - Breaking Dawn is where the story goes apeshit. For a start, it’s Harry Potter-long, numbering about 800 pages, so they’re almost definitely going to have to split it, but there are brilliant signs of what’s going to come. Werewolves planning abortions! The glorious return of evil red-eyed Michael Sheen! Half the bones in Kristen Stewart’s body breaking as she gives birth! Wolfboy giving up on Vampire Girl (for she does become a vampire in this one, at long fucking last) and going for her kid like the dirty little paedophile he is! A fully conscious possible demon baby! You sort of get the impression that by the time she’d released Eclipse (dull by comparison, and the film’s out this summer) and was raking in the cash, she just thought “let’s fuck with them” and wrote the most retarded stuff she could. Which is all very well and good in print, but on screen it’s either going to be beautifully graphic or ridiculously concealed. Either way, it looks to be hilarious.

In short, the elements of the films that stem from the novels end up being just as bad here. What bolster it, though, are a scattered series of performances that range from alright to really-quite-good, soundtracks that get it just right, intentional and unintentional comedy, a hot chick, and the final destination of a film that will hopefully freak the shit out of the teenage horde. OK, so it’s not a watertight argument, but at least it’s a case. And while there’s very little in it, I can see the appeal of a series like Twishite, and perhaps it’s not the worst thing in the world that these films are being made.

For fuck’s sake, though, burn those books.

*This is a lie. But I’m still right.

If you'd have a director make a film about your life, which one would you pick?

Fri, 05 Mar 2010 20:05:01 +0000

Duncan Jones, director of last year’s sleeper hit Moon. This might not sound like an obvious choice - sure, the film was awesome (and by fucking hell it was awesome) but how can I take sci-fi stylings and apply them to a film about my life?

Put simply, when I watched Moon I felt as if the walls of the cinema were just barriers to the world of the film - instead of there being the noisy environment of a multiplex out there, instead there was the Sarang moon base, and beyond that the moon itself. The fact that I instantly felt that immersed and involved, even with the stylised way in which the film was made, is a massive achievement, and that’s why it feels appropriate - if I can feel immersed in his directing style, then there’s obviously some sort of correlation.

If you’re interested to find out what he’s doing next, it’s a film called Source Code, and it sounds like Groundhog Day on steroids - Jake Gyllenhaal plays a soldier in a governmental program that forces him to experience the same train bombing over and over again, in the hope that he’ll uncover who did it and what they’re planning next. Batshit? Course it is.

Studying studies

Fri, 05 Mar 2010 17:15:37 +0000

If you’ve ever been at a university with even a degree of flexibility, you’ll probably have reached a point where you’ve got to choose from a list of modules. It might happen in your second or third year, even occasionally the first. And it’s exciting, to a point - all those possibilities, laid out in front of you. It’s also a pain in the bum.

You may or may not know that I’m studying English and Philosophy. It’s a course that’s equally split, but not equally organised, and because of that it’s hopelessly complex at this point. English modules are forty credits, meaning that their study requires an entire dedicated term. Philosophy modules are twenty credits, but because you have to have forty credits per term you end up studying two in tandem. This is all well and good, so far.

The other slightly bizarre setup of the English/Philosophy course is that the tripartite structure - Terms 1-2, then Terms 3-5, then 6-8 are how it’s split in terms of levels - is completely different to any other course that York teaches. Well, almost any course. Again, this is all fine, until you get a breakdown of communication between departments. Term 6 (so that’s Summer next year) is technically part of Level Three, so the English department haven’t yet started throwing module choices at us for it. But the Philosophy department, usually operating in a completely different manner, has.

This, of course, makes things plain painful. I’m thrown into a dilemma. What if I choose a Philosophy module now, only to find that it ruins my chances of getting onto my favourite English module later on? Alternatively, I could just leave it, and end up being left with something shit, like the Life and Times of Mary Shelley (most hated author; not a real course).

That said, there’s some stuff I’m definitely committing to. In keeping with my aim to stay as modern as possible (I get bored of historical literature, because I get bored of history), I’m going to move on to British and Irish Literature, 1910 to the Present in Autumn, and then in the spring of 2011 I’m going to be studying Maurice Merleau-Ponty’s Phenomenology of Perception, a book all about consciousness and how perception links into the body (or something like that) and a module called Free Will and Moral Responsibility, about… um, free will and moral responsibility. That bit’s fairly straightforward, and it looks interesting and engaging enough to tide me over.

I just wish that the departments in what’s supposedly the ninth best university in the country would actually talk to each other occasionally.

(I’m aware this is a bit of a rant - I’m suffering serious creative drought here.)

Finally, shorter page URLs. Now all we need to do is solve world hunger, and we're done.

Fri, 05 Mar 2010 00:45:02 +0000

Yes, of course it’s nerdy. It’s also more intuitive: the three main pages of this site now have easy-to-remember addresses.

Try these out for size:

Writing: http://chrisjfraser.com/writing

Contact: http://chrisjfraser.com/contact

My book: http://chrisjfraser.com/book

Neat, huh?

Son of Dave is live online tonight

Thu, 04 Mar 2010 11:51:42 +0000

Like music? Like harmonicas? Beatboxing? Strange men in hats? Blues crooning that feels so out of place it ends up feeling right? Then you’ll love this.

21st century bluesman Son of Dave is doing a live gig tonight, and the wonderful people over at the Camden Roundhouse (no, they’re not paying me to say that, more’s the pity) are streaming the gig live. Shortly afterwards, there’ll be an edited highlights version of the gig up online, and I’ll repost that when I get round to it.

Here’s the link to the stream. It’ll update at 9pm GMT (4pm Eastern/3pm Central), and kick off then. Look forward to it - it’s gonna be great.

Ever get that feeling where your head’s feeling kinda...

Wed, 03 Mar 2010 08:33:23 +0000

Ever get that feeling where your head’s feeling kinda fuzzy, and you just feel like stripping off, curling into a ball and emitting a low drone to yourself? No? just me? Never mind.

This is my last benevolent act of what no decent person could call “the day” - a brief and not-fantastic (blame the source materials - a bad blog design and photos with crops in all the wrong places) custom header that, if nothing else, was better than the one that was before. You can check it out here.

Best part about this all-nighter? I got to know someone I otherwise wouldn’t have by the name of Arden Kehoe. She’s an aspiring game designer with an enthusiasm for Grim Fandango that surpasses mine. No, really. She’s even got a tattoo. That’s dedication. But moreover, she managed to keep me awake for probably a good seven hours, while I got steadily more tired and she steadily drunker, and that by itself deserves to be commended.

Another theme down. I’m going to regret this. Man, I...

Wed, 03 Mar 2010 05:01:00 +0000

Another theme down. I’m going to regret this.

Man, I can’t believe I’m not getting paid for this. A few hours of sweat and an ounce of irritability later, and there’s another theme floating out there thanks to me. Of course, I can never submit it to the Tumblr Theme Gallery, because it contains a fairly hefty chunk of copyrighted material, but it’s nice to look at all the same.

It’s now 4:56am here, and I’m starting to feel the strain. Weird to think I’m not going to go to bed for a good day or so yet.

(If you want something doing - please, God, not another whole theme, but I’ll happily do custom headers and that sort of thing - then buzz me. I need to be awake for another few hours yet.)