media-heavy weekend

The boys left for the leeward side on Friday, to go to the Clan Gathering.  Having to work, I ended up with several afternoons and evenings so quietly by my lonesome.  I sat down!  I watched movies!  I did what I wanted to do!  I started a knitting project-- I haven't knit since we *learned* we had to move: March!  It is such a nice weekend.  I might hike tomorrow, or I might nap in the sun.

Badlands by Seleste deLaney.  There might be an interesting story in here, but the writing is so stilted, the dialogue so wooden, that it's a real slog.  The author has tried to make up for the shortcomings in the prose by adding in more flowery descriptors; the effect is that the work feels both under- and overwritten simultaneously.  

The witches: Salem,1962 by Stacy Schiff; read by Eliza Foss.  This isn't a bad book, but it's not a good audiobook, either.  The narrator does a good job and is pleasant to listen to, but there's too much going on, too many people, to take this in in this format.  I haven't read about this event since we did The crucible in high school, so keeping all the oddly-named members of the geographically-scattered but maritally-interwoven families straight is not a thing I can do.  Did not finish.

Moana with Auli'i Cravalho.  No one in my house was interested in this, so I was finally able to watch it myself.  It's pretty good--at least as good as Frozen, but Brave is still my favorite recent Disney film.  I caught two visual cameos, plus the verbal mention.  My Disney-based Pandora station (yes, I have one; I listen to everything from Iron Maiden to show tunes, which should surprise no one) started playing the music a few months ago, which is catchy but also content-y: the songs actually give information and help move the plot.  Two thumbs up.

Uncommon type by Tom Hanks.  I saw this on NetGalley and knew that no number of reviews from even trusted sources would do.  Patrons are going to want to know about this and "I read a good review" is not going to cut it.  I like this actor but I'm not a die-hard fan; I probably haven't seen a quarter of his movies, although I would say that he is very versatile and all his characters are unique.  That's impressive, but doesn't necessarily translate to being a good author-- I've panned several books written by good movie and TV writers.  The format is too different.  Assuming a movie writer could automatically write a good novel is like expecting a pianist to pick up guitar in 20 minutes.

The very first short story was the first short story I've ever read that didn't make me think, "huh, that would have made a really great novel."  In fact, every short story was the perfect length. 

What's even more amazing is that each character's voice is unique.  AND, the narration in each story has a different flavor as well.  Yet nothing was over the top or felt too reach-y.  The language was beautiful, but in an unobtrusive way.  Not "look at my effort, look at my ART."  Even his female main characters read as pretty authentic.  I'd be interested to see a novel next, but I couldn't even tell you which genre I'd prefer-- I was intrigued by his near-future "call it sci-fi" story, but his modern stories about a reoccurring group of friends had maybe the most authentic voices and his recent-historical fiction had the most moving character stories.  I guess I just need 5 or 6 novels from this author and then we can choose.

I emailed the publisher part-way through my reading because there are some comma errors, some dropped open- or closed quotation marks (and, I think, for one whole story, some missing font or illustration or other indicator to call out parts) and this text deserves perfect proofreading.  This is a collection you could recommend to 80-90% of readers.  A must-have.

Animal house with David Attenborough.  Not ready to go to bed but want to listen to something while knitting?  Let's see what new BBC dockies Netflix has added.  I could listen to him forever.  Someone needs to have him read the dictionary before too much longer here.

My little pony: The movie (a la 1986), with Madeline Kahn and others.  I checked this in earlier this week and felt... those of us with memories of the '80s and '90s really need a word for the shamefaced-yet-proud morbid fascination that goes with our nostalgia.  Nostalgia doesn't cover our childhoods.  Our earlier memories are of appallingly awful technological and social experimentation.

I think this was one of those movies my littler sister *loved* (because pink! ponies! the girl has a heart on her jumper!) but I didn't completely hate it because there was, like, actual danger.  Girls (well, female characters) took action without boys anywhere around.  Watching it now, I'm super impressed at the vocabulary.  And amazed at the complete lack of attention to detail.  It's not really lack of plot, because characters move around and make decisions.  It's not really lack of world-building, because there's all kinds of locations and magic animal groups.  It's more a complete lack of any *reason* to do anything.  The evil characters are evil because it's fun to be evil-- typical toddler-appropriate plot line.  But nothing else that happens make any more sense.  It's baffling that this movie was based on a toy line and all these other sides-- an elf-ish magician, fuzzy sentient animals, ogre-y things, another type of magical pony race-- were all chucked in with no background or explanation.  I guess that's maybe how kids experience the world though?  They don't know where or who people are, but their parents lead them and oo, look, new friends!