Red and Black

Red and Black

By Stendhal

"Le Rouge et le Noir (The Red and the Black), 1830, by Stendhal, is an historical psychological novel in two volumes, chronicling a provincial young man’s attempts to socially rise beyond his plebeian birth with a combination of talent and hard work, deception and hypocrisy — yet who ultimately allows his passions to betray him." ~wikipedia.com

In a nutshell

Well well well, what have we got here then. Red and black surprised me when I got my hands on it by its sheer size. Now one or two months after going through it, I must say that I had taken quite a liking to the style of writing as well as the story itself. I for one, adore books in which the characters start at the bottom of some sort of food chain or other and make their way up, but the twist that Stendhal had for Julien Sorel surprised me even more. Yes, I was surprised. If you don't read anything about what you're about to read, of course the book will surprise you if the author has that sort of intention.

The story is interesting enough as said in the wikipedia article carrying the main character through different changes in scenery in which most often than not, he did not fit. Many a supporting character paid great expense for attempting to help Sorel how to cope with his new life, but the man seemed to pay more attention to his inner ego than towards what was happening on the outside. I was left with the impression that he was thought intelligent only because he could memorize a great deal of things ( the bible in Latin... of all the useless knowledges... I'd kill for a memory like that ) and in my opinion, intelligence and memory are not one and the same.

Still, maybe I'm judging him too harshly because I don't really agree with his wishy washy way of dealing with his two important female characters, but then again books are not written to be agreed with. Or maybe his intelligence didn't shine fully because he wasn't in his usual element, but I hardly doubt that would have done him any good in the mountain forester's cabin. The other characters are well described as well, and considering the two volumes the book has, it'd be quite surprising if they weren't. The names however haven't remained in my mind and I'll not be pained to google more.

Sadly I can't find a quote so that's that for today.

Dragon Age : Origins

Well, considering that this is what I've been doing with my time the last week and something, I thought it only reasonable to make a short review of the game right here. So without further wish wash talk : Dragon Age : Origins.

A note though before we start. I shall be comparing this game a lot with Baldur's Gate 2 considering the developers at Bioware considered it the "spiritual successor" of it.

The plot (thickens)

Well... truth be told, it does not. There's nothing that makes the main plot in any way surprising. It's simple and straight forward and while the game offers a lot of choices to go through with it, I didn't find the patience to go through all of the possible endings. It is an enticing story, but nothing more. (I could go into great detail about it, but I fear spoilers). If I were to rate it, I'd give it an 8, for good writing, but not further up on accounts of predictability and straightforwardness.

The Characters (maybe fonts?)

Well well well... to tell the truth, it has been an extremely long while since I've seen such well made characters in any game. All of them are memorable and fun and the voice acting is brilliant. There are romance points in the game with more than one person (seems that they learned their lesson from Neverwinter Nights 2) and all of those that I found were unique and interesting in their own way. Also the game tackles the gay (male, and I would suspect female - I didn't try that out) relationships that most other games would not touch, and I sincerely applaud them for making Zevran a very likeable character. I'd not put him past reaching the epicness of Boo. If I had to rate it I think a 10 would be sufficient, because the characters border perfection.

The Graphics (are eye candy)

To say that a game has good graphics these days is like saying it comes in a box. We have achieved a good place in time when the eye candy of a game is really important, but considering all that's out there, all the sources of inspiration etc, etc, etc, you'd have to be a blind wombat not to be able to get it right. What we can talk about is how well optimized the game is, and to tell the truth, I'm not really sure. My computer had a few hitches here and there on almost full graphics but overall it was a pleasant experience so 9 would be sufficient.

The soundtrack (chuuu chuuu!)

To put it simply... it is great... at a point one of the characters sings and I loaded the game up 3 times just to hear that... It was that awesome...

The gameplay (tossing and turning)

This is the point where I take out my PC is the master race hat and wave my flag around. This game has the same problem as all the games that are made with gaming consoles in on the prime plane. You can clearly tell when a game has that in mind and you can see it clearly in Dragon Age origins. The controls are simple enough, and the interface is okay, but the way the game works, simply puts me a bit off it. It's a certain je ne sais quoi that the game has, as opposed to, say The Witcher which is a PC exclusive title. Areas are relatively small and have very little branches or liberty of movement... I once got killed by a monster because the character I was controlling got caught in a twig. I kid you not. That's not the sort of collision detection that a game in this day and age should have. But enough of my ranting... while the game smells of console like socks in a gym bag, it doesn't really ruin the experience, and then again there are some out there who are not PC master racists like myself, so I find it unfair to give the game less than 8.

Replayability (dragon is replayable)

The game has 5 origin stories which are all well written and it is said that the world reacts to you depending on your origin. The differences as far as I played in the main story, are minor concerning NPCs but enough to warrant a replay out of the more dedicated fans... or maybe myself when I'll be bored again. Also, being the experienced gamer that I am, I think the almost a week of constant playing says much about the game's length.

All in all it's a good game, and I compared it to Baldur's Gate 2 far less than I expected to. It definitely deserves a buying but the spiritual or otherwise successor of Baldur's Gate 2, Dragon Age : Origins is not.

The cat / The house on the canal

The Cat / The house on the canal

By Georges Simenon

"Georges Joseph Christian Simenon was a Belgian writer. A prolific author who published nearly 200 novels and numerous short works, Simenon is best known for the creation of the fictional detective Maigret." ~wikipedia.org

The book I got my hands on had the two aforementioned titles (which are two short stories) on it, but as the wikipedia article suggests, Mr Simenon had written a lot more novels and short works. His writing style is interesting but the object of these two stories are rather unexciting.

The Cat, says the story of a grumpy old couple who communicate by throwing notes to each other. And the rest of the story is saying how that came to be and what the main character does in reaction to that, which is not much. I mean, it's not like he'll be able to go on a journey of self-discovery and come back to see the world and his wife with new eyes. No, the novel is more realistic than that.

The house on the canal, is a bit more interesting as far as action is concerned, and while people die in it, I can't find any sort of interest in the trials and tribulations of a girl that was forced by the death of her father to move to the country with her cousins. While some rather peculiar things happen, and her odd behaviour and thought patterns are incentive enough to want to know what happens next, ultimately I couldn't wait to end this book as well and to start reading something else.

Overall, it was not a waste of time, but if presented a more interesting book, I would have read it. I have not found a quote from either of these two novels in the 5 second attempt that I had, so there won't be any. I won't be bothered to do more for a book that left me indifferent.

Wuthering Heights

It's been a while but here's the next book I read. I'm a few books after this one, but I couldn't be bothered to write... something about the lecture seeping into my mind.

Wuthering Heights

By Emily Jane Bronte

"Wuthering Heights is Emily Brontë's only novel. It was first published in 1847 under the pseudonym Ellis Bell, and a posthumous second edition was edited by her sister Charlotte.

The name of the novel comes from the Yorkshire manor on the moors on which the story centers (as an adjective, Wuthering is a Yorkshire word referring to turbulent weather). The narrative tells the tale of the all-encompassing and passionate, yet thwarted, love between Heathcliff and Catherine Earnshaw, and how this unresolved passion eventually destroys them and many around them.

Now considered a classic of English literature, Wuthering Heights met with mixed reviews by critics when it first appeared, mainly because of the narrative's stark depiction of mental and physical cruelty. Though Charlotte Brontë's Jane Eyre was originally considered the best of the Brontë sisters' works, many subsequent critics of Wuthering Heights argued that its originality and achievement made it superior. Wuthering Heights has also given rise to many adaptations and inspired works, including films, radio, television dramatisations, a musical by Bernard J. Taylor, ballet, opera, and song (notably the Kate Bush hit "Wuthering Heights")." ~wikipedia.com

In a nutshell

I was rather unlucky after reading my last book to find myself in the situation to read about yet more nobles and the situations in which they live. The narrator changes a few times but that doesn't do much to disrupt the flow of the story. It's a frame story as some literary critics might want to call it.

The story itself is interesting enough, I might say, but sincerely, I'd have rather skipped it. Aside from the ending characters, I found myself lacking the power to like the main characters of the story and the fake main character, as I like to call him (is the first narrator, then the narration is taken over by his maid, which continues on with the rest of the story) is the one I personally would have liked to hear more about. That's how boring the story was.

The author gave poetic justice in the end, but the fact that the fake main character had no input on the happenings of evens in the whole book, I found it a bit lacking. Maybe it's me, maybe it is cause I really had trouble giving a damn about those others, and the story is quite interesting... But to tell the truth I didn't find it so... maybe I was just unlucky to read it so soon after Pride and Prejudice... ah well.

"I have just returned from a visit to my landlord - the solitary neighbour that I shall be troubled with. This is certainly a beautiful country! In all England, I do not believe that I could have fixed on a situation so completely removed from the stir of society. A perfect misanthropist's heaven: and Mr. Heathcliff and I are such a suitable pair to divide the desolation between us. A capital fellow! He little imagined how my heart warmed towards him when I beheld his black eyes withdraw so suspiciously under their brows, as I rode up, and when his fingers sheltered themselves, with a jealous resolution, still further in his waistcoat, as I announced my name.

'Mr. Heathcliff?' I said.

A nod was the answer.

'Mr. Lockwood, your new tenant, sir. I do myself the honour of calling as soon as possible after my arrival, to express the hope that I have not inconvenienced you by my perseverance in soliciting the occupation of Thrushcross Grange: I heard yesterday you had had some thoughts - '

'Thrushcross Grange is my own, sir,' he interrupted, wincing. 'I should not allow any one to inconvenience me, if I could hinder it - walk in!'

The 'walk in' was uttered with closed teeth, and expressed the sentiment, 'Go to the Deuce:' even the gate over which he leant manifested no sympathising movement to the words; and I think that circumstance determined me to accept the invitation: I felt interested in a man who seemed more exaggeratedly reserved than myself." ~Wuthering Heights, Chapter 1

Something to keep things moving - Pride and Prejudice

Well, oddly enough, the last few months have given me nothing to be truthfully annoyed about. Hence the lack of posts in the last few months.

With that in mind, I shall add the scope of this project to discussing books in short bursts. Mostly because I'm not really keen on joining a forum and discussing books.

To start things off, I'll use the book I've just finished this morning, before going to sleep.

Pride and Prejudice
by Jane Austen

"Pride and Prejudice is a novel by Jane Austen. First published on 28 January 1813, it was her second published novel. Its manuscript was initially written between 1796 and 1797 in Steventon, Hampshire, where Austen lived in the rectory. Originally called First Impressions, it was never published under that title, and in following revisions it was retitled Pride and Prejudice.

The book is narrated in free indirect speech following the main character Elizabeth Bennet as she deals with matters of upbringing, marriage, moral rightness and education in her aristocratic society. Though the books setting is uniquely turn of the 19th century, it remains a fascination of modern readership, continuing to remain at the top of lists titled "most loved books of all time", and receiving considerable attention from literary critics. This modern interest has resulted in a number of dramatic adaptations and a plethora of books developing Austin's memorable characters further." ~ wikipedia.com

In a nutshell
Not the usual kind of book I like to read, Pride and Prejudice was able to catch me from the start. The witty humor (at points) and the dosing of drama and romance combined with the main character (Elizabeth Bennet) and her supporting characters (Jane Bennet, Bingley, Fitzwilliam Darcy) which is almost impossible not to at least like from the start, made me read the 300+ pages of the book in record time. The plot isn't all that complicated, there are no layers of intrigue, or mysteries to be solved, only a bit of soap opera-ish kind of tension towards the ending of the book.

The author did a great job to tie all loose ends and the ending was fulfilling enough. I don't look back at the time spent reading it as time wasted. It was a delightful little distraction, and I recommend the book to anyone who delights himself in reading.

That's all that comes up in my mind at this time. If you have any questions about the book, leave a comment and I will respond or edit my post in order to accommodate an answer.

"It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife. However little known the feelings or views of such a man may be on his first entering a neighborhood, this truth is so well fixed in the minds of the surrounding families, that he is considered the rightful property of some one or other of their daughters."
~Pride and Prejudice, Chapter 1

Patriotism

I dare say, it has been a long while since my last post, and to my few readers I apologize. I haven't lacked things to rant about, nor inspiration to write the articles... or rants... themselves. However, I have been lacking the time, and more honestly the mood to write anything. So here I am now, with this new and rather fresh frustration of mine. I haven't considered this subject as important enough to merit attention, until the events in the Republic of Moldova ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Moldova ) started a few weeks ago, after the elections. You can consider those events as the final drop of water in the almost spilling glass that made me write this article. But enough about that, let's see the definitions.

Definitions
nation = "a large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own " ~dictionary.com
patriotism = "devoted love, support, and defense of one's country; national loyalty." ~dictionary.com
humanity = "all human beings collectively; the human race; humankind." ~dictionary.com

Main Body
Since the dawn of time, man has been gathering in larger and larger groups of like-minded people. First there were families, then tribes. Depending on the area, they evolved into small nations or city states. Then real nations, and finally alliances. It seems logical enough, that to achieve great things human beings need two things. Numbers and ambition. History stands testament that when both of them are present, many great things can be achieved. No matter the technological advancement.

People, as a rule of thumb, are unambitious. We're like ants, only we have evolved thinking. We, as a race, need to be told what to do in order to do it. That's why people listen to governments, presidents, prime ministers and kings. Because we need to have someone with a vision. Someone who can guide people to a better tomorrow. As individuals, we wouldn't be able to achieve even half of what was achieved till now. Hence the need for leaders. Tribe elder, noble, king, president, senate, it does not really matter what you are going to call it. But ambitious people don't like to share. They don't like to share their followers, their dreams or their prosperity. That's why when the first two tribes of humans met, blows were probably exchanged. Not because that we are violent in nature... but because we'd rather die than share our food with people from a place we don't know. I suppose some of that can be blamed on the fear of the unknown. We don't know them, we fear them, hence we will not share our food with them.

But with ambitious people, through conquest or diplomacy countries were forged and then alliances. So here we are now, in the year 2009 with a globe sliced up in imaginary lines. We have nations. Just like human children, human nations are born in blood. But unlike humans who are born young in the blood of the old, nations are born from the blood of the young while the old linger on. Don't get me wrong, some people needed to be liberated for one reason or another and lives had to be sacrificed. But I do have to ask something... Why stop now in the unification of the human race? Why, when we used every little reason under the sky to unify before, like language, color, religion and ancestors... why stop now? There is still one thing all humans have in common... we are all human... Think of everything we could achieve as a rase if we stood united.

The answer to my question "Why stop now?" comes in one single word. Patriotism. Other reasons would be easily overcome if there was a real desire for unification, but patriotism is the main reason, whether it is acknowledged or not. People are scared to loose their "national identity" so, that fear turns to hate and dissent towards globalization.

Conclusion
I consider it self-destructive to resist the next step in the evolution of human government on accounts of love for the place you were accidentally born into. You did not have a choice as to where you are born, so why defend it like your life depends on it?

People are dangerous (II)

I said I was going to continue this article, but I am rather stumped for ideas really. I do not think that I can expand on what was already said so I will end it with a discussion on diplomacy.

You see, the problem with people is that they feel greatly about some very retarded things. I get passionate about religious talks, anime and computer games and for most of part, I can go into pretty much detail about those or some other given subjects to the point I bore my audience. Of course I will not like it when someone I do not know, will come around and say that my particularly favorite religious belief, anime or computer game sucks, but if that person is not a close friend, I will shrug it off and walk away. The thing is, not many people are able to do that (meaning walk away), and for the most part, both sides, the accusing sucker and the defending sucker, are to blame for this.

On the defender sucker's part it usually boils down to the misunderstanding of the meaning of life. What I mean by that is that the defending sucker, forgets that he is not defending his personal phylosophy of life in most cases, but a book, a movie, a political party or whatever. You do not need to throw bricks at people's heads until he dismisses your very existence as an inconvenience to the world around you. And even then, as long as you have friends you prove him wrong. So the defender sucker has the inability to not give a shit. But what of the accusing sucker?

Well, this is mostly the serious part of this article I wanted to write. I have recently joined a critique network where people submit manuscripts and different members from the comunity critique their work in order for them to improve their writing. I am not saying this to brag, I wanted to get to the fact that the leader of the site placed a great deal of effort on making sure that people know how to be diplomatic. With your own creations more than anything else, you will be prone to get upset if someone, instead of saying something constructive, he simply says something like "Yea, it sucked. Write it again. You have no talent." He said that if you don't have anything useful or nice to say, or the piece that you have to critique is that bad, simply move on to the next rather than destroy it with harsh language. Nobody was born smart.

Where I want to go with this is : "People could use a bit more diplomacy when critiquing other people's tastes" if they want to avoind having bricks thrown at their heads in the very worst or loosing all of their friends in the very least. Think a bit before you say anything, state that your personal preference is a fact and so on and so forth. It will save you a lot of headache in the future.

Then again, some of us might not want to be friends with certain groups of people, so diplomacy may be skipped in those moments. Do what you have to, but really try to be diplomatic, because nobody likes an asshole.