Hey teacher, leave those kids alone

I'm considering adding a 'title filched from' byline to my entries in lieu of the fact that I'm too lazy to post daily and thus rivet you with an accurate tally of alcohol units consumed, the number of road accidents I almost caused and the amount of things I proclaimed "awesome", as a proper journal clearly would. Is it worth updating old entries thus also? Probably this is only worthwhile if the majority of the source of my titles isn't usually as appallingly obvious as this one... I am not a good judge, clearly. I noticed that Neil Gaiman's webgoblin used a Buffy quote as a title the other day and the collision of two obsessions made me unreasonably happy. (FYI I'm totally planning on stalking the webgoblin on livejournal now that NG's taken over his own blog again.)

Anyway, I thought that it might be pertinent for me to occasionally actually discuss what I'm doing. So here are some meandering thoughts about my occupation. Bon appetite! Firstly let me please emphasise that I don't really feel all that well equipped to teach English- I've never done a TEFL course or had any training besides my two day initiation here, and I spent most of that asleep. I did have a job teaching English in Holborn for a couple of weeks a few summers ago (but left when the manager tried to both withhold my pay and fondle me), but it was the dodgiest and most ridiculous thing ever so of course I wasn't trained. I was just given a crappy textbook and told to stretch the material out for an hour. A lot of it was very basic stuff too, like numbers and letters of the alphabet which are pretty straightforward. Also, almost all of my students spoke Romance languages so mostly I just cheated and explained things in an odd mixture of English, French, Spanish and Portuguese (much to the chagrin of my lone Hungarian student- but he spoke reasonably good English anyway and shouldn't have been in my beginners class, plus noone who wants to talk about Nirvana all the time should expect me to deign to communicate with them).

I've never been trained to actually teach English, or indeed to teach anything at all, and the fact that I have a little (rubbish) experience is merely a happy coincidence- it isn't required by my job. All that's required is proof that you have a degree and that you're a native English speaker, and I suspect white skin may also be a(n unofficial) requirement. The idea of this company is that the students deal with grammar issues with their Korean teachers, whereas the native speakers are supposed to focus more on pronunciation and usage. Trying to delineate tasks like this doesn't work however. For certain activities correcting students' grammar is necessary, plus generally they want me to point out their grammatical mistakes. I don't think that the class should consist of a constant barrage of corrections- that isn't good for their confidence, and it makes the situation more tense so there is less likelihood of having free flowing conversation (especially if the student is quite shy). Before I started this job I thought that I had a reasonably good understanding of English language (I always preferred studying language to literature). Possibly I do, but only in relative terms- many of my friends are useless at identifying the basic components of speech (i.e. nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs and pronouns), whereas I can remember what conjunctions and prepositions are, and could probably hazard a vague explanation at a past participle.

I am not good at explaining grammar rules though- and students' files often come to me via their Korean teacher filled with handy notes about tenses (many of which have whimsical names like 'the future perfect') and so on which I stare blearily at and then ignore completely. I often get bombarded with questions which I simply cannot answer. Sometimes they're asking me how to use a verb in a random tense that I've never heard of, but often the stumper is simply "why?". Why do people get "in" a car but "on" the bus? Why should I use "a" not "the"? Today my student had written "just as entertainment companies" and I suggested changing it to "just as entertainment companies do" or "just like entertainment companies" but she was a little peeved that I couldn't explain why. It doesn't help that I suffer from brain freeze at least 50% of the time!

Also English as it is spoken is obviously often quite different to 'proper' English. The BBC news magazine recently compiled a list of twenty examples of grammar misuse. I think that I'm guilty of both incorrectly using the phrase "for free" (where it should be simply "free" or "for nothing") and referring to midnight and midday respectively as 12AM and 12PM. Things like the above are found so commonly in (spoken) English though that I wouldn't really call them errors per se, language isn't static and if the usage of a word changes substantially then that change ought to be accepted instead of railed against. Similarly I wouldn't correct a student if they said "on foot" instead of "by foot" because the former phrase is used often, even if it might technically be considered 'incorrect'. I know that I need to watch myself with apostrophes, I still sometimes throw in an incorrect possessive "it's" instead of "its" because that rule never made sense to me (just as I always think that 'grateful' ought to be spelt 'greatful' because I could imagine that the etymology of the two are entwined, but I can't see the relevance of grates, or grating, to thankfulness [*]).


Gratifyingly (ah, actually now I can see the connection between 'grat(e)' and 'grateful' and feel like an idiot) I can at least understand how these are misuses and even though I've never really known what the difference between saying "x and I" and "x and me" is (despite mentions in both The Song Of The Lioness quartet and Dawson's Creek) I seem to be able to instinctively differentiate between them and use them correctly in speech (most of the time!). I would be hard pressed to explain how one differentiates though, at least without a handy explanation in front of my face. Props to the linguists, language really is absorbed and not taught. Of course there are instances where language operates in a counter-intuitive way: for example the plurals of Walkman, computer mouse, still-life and attorney general. I'm not sure if the fact that 'open fired' is apparently the correct form of 'opened fire' is counter-intuitive (as military English sometimes is) or if it just seems so because I've heard the latter so often though.

The books that we use seem to have been written by a variety of different people, so I sometimes find Anglicisms thrown in. However the dominant dialect is certainly American English, both in the books and in Korea in general. There are differences between American and British English (and of course there are myriad other regional forms of English too) that aren't restricted to just differences in the vocabulary that is used (for example lift vs. elevator; trousers vs. pants; soccer vs. football). I've been exposed to enough American television, film and music to not be completely lost in the mire, for example I'm vaguely aware of the American conception of a townhouse (via Sex and the City), which isn't quite the same as a London townhouse. However, there are also clearly differences which I'm not aware of too. For example I was relentlessly "correcting" my students for omitting the 'and' of a year (e.g. saying "two thousand eight" instead of "two thousand and eight"), but I've been informed that both are acceptable in American English. This wouldn't be too much of a problem if my students were uniquely mine, but since they often get shunted around to various teachers (on the whim of whoever is in charge of the schedule) it must get very confusing for the poor dears.

Also, I don't know the meaning of every word ever. I can never remember what exactly a condominium is, or a duplex. I also really don't care, but there's a lesson on dwellings (which incidentally omits anything interesting like a castle or a barge) and I often get enquiries. I even tried looking them up, but it was so dull that the definition just slid out of my head immediately. Some things really sound like nonsense to me- seriously what the hell are a stand-over (possibly something to do with blackmail?) and a blue light special? And is 'poseur' an English loanword from French? I don't understand why if so, since we already have 'poser'. Generally I can blag it, like today I managed to correctly guess the meaning of 'yardage' (or perhaps it was sitting around in the back of my brain), but sometimes I just want to say "sorry, I haven't a clue".

The other day I was reading through an article in preparation for a topic tutorial with one of my favourite students and had to go look up a word ('obdurate', I also had to search up Albert Schweitzer, and still don't understand why I was supposed to know who he is) and was beginning to despair of my ability to teach. It turned out to not be a big deal since we mostly just chatted completely off-topic instead of discussing the illogical treatment of people with AIDS. I think that I am becoming a little better though. I've noticed that I'm able to give better more succinct definitions, rather than gesticulating wildly I've been filling the students' files with handy diagrams (very badly drawn, but I reckon that they get the point across) and synonyms. Some words and concepts do defy simple explanations though, which is why the students should do their bloody homework, goddammit!

I had a moment the other day when I really felt like an English teacher though:

Scotland: Are you hungover?
Me: Actually I don't think that's an actual word. 'Hangover' is a noun not a verb, so really you ought to ask me if I have a hangover.
Scotland: ...Is that a yes?
Me: Very. *dies*

Obviously some concepts just do not translate well and can be very confusing. I find that my students are split roughly into two groups: those who have had contact with the existence and ideas of other cultures (possibly through travelling or living abroad, but it can also be through exposure to films, music, friends etc), and those who haven't. Those who haven't are often adamant that they are like all Koreans and that I'm asking unreasonable questions if I enquire whether they like Thai food, reggae or some other lesson-appropriate thing. Sometimes students, especially ones at lower levels, have a problem with my accent too since they're much more used to an American one. I sympathise but it does get annoying... luckily after a couple of lessons we usually don't have any problems (although sometimes there's residual confusion over the "a" sound as in 'can't', 'water', 'after' etc).

Normally I find most of the lower level students a bit boring. Some of them are perfectly nice and try really hard, but it can be kind of frustrating and dull- especially if it's a busy evening and there's one after another after another. I sooo cannot be bothered with most of the middle school students too, they're so shy it's unreal! They all prefer me to the other native speaker teachers since I'm a girl (gender discrimination is working wonders for me here, most of the women love me simply for having a vagina) and try to wrangle themselves into lessons with me instead, but they're still really quiet and dull around me. Generally it is much, much easier to get along with the higher level students- simply because it's possible to communicate with them better. I have two favourite topic tutorial students (topic tutorials are either 25 or 50 minute lessons where there's freetalking, supposedly about a specific subject but it often dissolves into random chitchat, and I vastly prefer them to normal, structured lessons- especially with interesting pupils), one of whom studied in Wales for a year and is almost militantly fond of my accent. There's a few others on levels 4, 5 and 6 that I really adore who brighten my day too including a guy who wrote an absolutely flawless essay in English about the constructed nature of memory, a really funny chick who studied at Royal Holloway and is still indignant about it claiming to be part of the University of London since it's bloody well not in London and a high school student whose English is so much better than all the businessmen that it's laughable. I don't really like teaching the business courses since I know nothing at all about the subject (and thankfully I have to use those books far less frequently here than at Yeouido), but I have a couple of businessmen students who are very fluent and regale me with stories of their insane bosses instead of doing their work. I don't think that even they could swing me around on the interview course though, it's terrible. Luckily I don't have to teach it much, but it's next to impossible to stretch those lessons out into 25 minutes- and the section where I had to ask a poor student to describe his personality, his character, his personality traits and finally his character traits befuddled me as much, if not more than, him.

Having said all that though, one of my favourite students hardly fits the mold. Not only is he on the first level, he's been floundering ever since the beginning and repeated the first lessons several times. Now he's finally progressed onto lesson four (after more than double the amount of lessons). His English isn't very good (obviously), but he manages to communicate his ideas reasonably well. The main reason that I adore him though is that he becomes practically fluent when discussing books, travelling, his daughter or music. We had a nice chat about Milan Kundera today, he's always eloquent about his travels (although I do try to point out that the cities of Italy are not usually referred to as Venezia, Firenze, Roma, Milano e Napoli in English), he adores his baby girl so much and is adamant that she's not going to be a 'salaryman' (well I'd imagine it'd be unlikely that she'll end up as any kind of man, but you get his drift) like him and he's encouraging her to be a bohemian artist layabout, and he's incredibly articulate on the subject of music (although he can't for the life of him pronounce 'Zeppelin').

The lower level books have a section where the student has prompt questions to ask of the teacher. This can be good as it can engage the students more and it gives them an opportunity to mimic. Plus I can generally stretch out talking about myself if I have to. However it can lead to some awkward conversations, I've had a few along the lines of:

Student: Are you married?
Me: No.
Student: But you want to get married, yes?
Me: No.
Student: Ah, you want to stay single. *knowing look*
Me: No. I have a boyfriend.
Student: Ah! How long have you been dating?
Me: About 6 years.
Student: Erm, 6 months?
Me: No, 6 years.
Student: So why don't you marry him?
Me: I don't want to get married. Look, it's not the same as in Korea... many people live together without getting married, it isn't considered strange.

At this point there's a divergence in responses; the female students seem satisfied with my line of argument, and I tend to get something along the lines of "that's nice dear, but I couldn't do that in Korea", whereas the blokes' answer is usually "harrumph".

Anyway the wonderful level one student I was talking about (who is equally obsessed with Mozart and The Beatles, FYI) had to ask me what I want for my next birthday. This proved to be quite a puzzler for me, since there's nothing that I actually want- surely this is a dangerous state to live in? I have a laptop, a 60GB mp3 player (even if she isn't behaving herself) and a camera- i.e. all the things I wanted. I would like to go clothes shopping, but that's something I can do myself clearly. I don't buy DVDs or music because I download everything, and anyway I don't want to accumulate too much stuff because I'm eventually going to have to either pack it up or leave it behind. The main thing that I want is to travel, and I don't mean right now: I only just got here! So I said 'books'. It isn't untrue, I do always want books, it's just that I'm capable of providing myself with books and anyway this lack of demands makes me sound like a humble hermit who might run off to go live in the woods at any moment. Fuck that, I'm as materialistic and greedy as the next person. Really. Anyway he asked what was at the top of my list, and predictably I drew a blank. I have a list on Facebook of 135 books that I want to read, and that's just the ones that I noted down off the top of my head! Eventually I managed to grope for a relatively recent addition to said catalog and said The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand. He then made me write it down and said that he was going to buy it for my birthday (which he remembered is in February since so is his). I doubt that he'll actually remember to do so, but it's still very sweet!

[*] The online etymology dictionary tells me that 'grate' is an archaic word meaning 'thankful' though, so perhaps this will stop troubling me now.

How do I feel, what do I say? In the end it all goes away! (Sugar!)

Sometimes I worry that I live in a completely different reality to other people. I'm pretty sure that it's other people who are the insane ones though. For example,

Scotty: You were so funny that night!
Me: Hwha?
Scotty: I can't believe you slept on the floor!
Me: What are you talking about? I slept on the bed!
Scotty: Really? Oh, well I can't believe you offered to sleep on the floor anyway.
Me: What? That was you!
Scotty: Hwha?
Jojo: Would both of you idiots shut up?

My current uneasiness with FB is stemming from mild confusion too I think. First off I'm not comfortable with the idea of being liked. Being adored, admired and appreciated is all good, but I can't think of anything more creepy than the experience of having some sycophantic person telling me that I'm "so cool". Shudder. FB isn't likely to do something like that, thankfully. However he has the irritating crush thing going (although it's Friday now, so perhaps he's over it by now, who knows?), which wouldn't be as bad as it is if it wasn't for the moony eyes. I'm completely incapable of dealing with other people's emotional lives, I just avert my eyes and talk about food or something. I could just ignore him (and thus the whole thing) quite successfully, but the problem is that he is fairly awesome (when he isn't gazing, or annoying me on purpose) especially when bitching- and the five year old in me can't understand why I should have to give something up when I didn't do anything. He's the stupid one, why should I have to deal with the consequences?

Anyway, we had a lengthy (and highly amusing) conversation at some point on Friday (when we were somewhere along the drunk-hungover axis), which climaxed (heh) with:

Him: My ex-fuck buddy's supposed to coming over later, but I really don't want to have sex with her again cos it'll just confuse things even more. I think I'm gonna have to go for a run and then masturbate [*].
Me: *gigglesnort* Have fun!

[*]Who actually uses the word 'masturbate'? I decided to produce this verbatim and not edit it to 'wank' (which is a wonderful and versatile word) because I think it adds to the ridiculousness.

My interpretation of the thrust of the conversation was something along the lines of "look, I know that you know that I like you, and I know that you know that I know that you don't like me like that and nothing's going to happen so I just want things to be cool between us and not awkward". When I explained the whole thing to J however she looked at me aghast and claimed that the correct translation was "I turned down sex for you! Love me, love me, say that you love me...", whilst I'm hoping that she's just being paranoid and insane I'm now a little disturbed. I'm giving FB a fairly wide berth, and accepting the challenge of being as unlikable as possible. If anyone can do it, I think it's me.

Meanwhile K and S are involved in some convoluted and highly disturbing courtship ritual as far as I can tell. This mostly consists of them winding each other up, trying to involve me in their dramas and occasionally getting drunk and nuzzling while they reminisce about past nuzzling incidents. Somehow though it was me who ended up sprawled out on top of K in the street whilst S rolled his eyes. It's a funny old world.

Instead of dealing with said world, how about a dram of escapism? I love the fact that I didn't come across this until I'd actually read Atlas Shrugs: if famous authors wrote fanfiction. It features Anne Rice's take on LOTR, Nicholas Sparks on Star Wars (although it could easily be Mitch Albom instead!), David Sedaris on Harry Potter and, best of all, Ayn Rand on Buffy. Can you imagine anything more perfect? It doesn't contain any spoilers beyond the most basic premises (so if you didn't want to know that there's vampires in Buffy...well oops, it's too late now). On the subject of fanfiction, I discovered Neil Gaiman's explanation of slash which was great, especially this part "It's normally written by extremely nice ladies. I have several very sane, respected, and respectable friends who write slash fiction, and do not try to make me read it". I've also been feeling quite a lot of love for his song I Google You. I recommend reading through the interesting comments on that post, and not only because NG popped by to post the lyrics. I now really want to read The Physics of the Buffyverse, yes a book about the science of Buffy has been published. Ask me again why I love fandom. It sounds like such an interesting book, as does Oullette's other book Black Bodies and Quantum Cats. I love science, especially biology and physics, and was semi-seriously considering dropping out of SOAS in my second year to go and study physics somewhere (not that I'd be able to with no appropriate A levels). I think that was probably fuelled by reading The Science of the Discworld, which is a wonderfully eloquent (and passionate) book. The fact that Oullette was actually an English major who accidentally ended up doing science writing makes it all the more interesting and appealing to me. I think I might actually end up ordering The Physics of the Buffyverse, I haven't ordered anything to my new address yet. Fun, fun fun!

Speaking of the interwebs (see how this all, sort of, inter-relates seamlessly?) Lifehacker's top 10 Youtube hacks actually looks pretty useful. I haven't had a chance to implement their ideas yet but their Better Youtube Firefox Extension sounds pretty good (having the option to turn off the autoplay is a brilliant idea) and their filegrabbing suggestions sound good. My geeky side is also hoping to sort out the last.fm blogger widget properly, but in case that takes a while I can at least post it in an entry. Hopefully it won't fuck up!





My sister (AKA Sib) was a little derisive as to the extreme nerdiness of my entries. She just wishes she was cool enough to understand it all. Harrumph like a hippo. The Park Bench is a pretty fun nerdy-lady blog which I've been enjoying. It also furnished me with the link to the 10 geeky movies that should have been great but weren't. I'm in broad agreement with most of it, the Hitchhiker's film was incredibly disappointing (except for the parts which involved Neil Hannon singing) and the Matrix sequels were a pile of wank. I haven't actually seen any of the others (being as I don't watch films) but I feel this vindicates my choice not to watch the third Mummy film (I haven't actually seen the first two either, but I wouldn't be entirely averse to the idea if I could just get through the opening sequence of the first one), A.I., The Time Machine remake and League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (of course no one would be foolish enough to want to watch Waterworld). I'd quite like to see the Charlie and the Chocolate Factory remake though, it sounds fun although probably not über-amazing or anything.

On the subject of awesome blogs I simply have to pimp the Saved By The Bell Quote of the Day blog, could there be a better idea for an online journal ever? Then, mixing my segues like others blend metaphorical cocktails, I'm going to wax poetical about a couple more lists. I always love those lists of the sexiest wo/men because they combine some of my favourite things: hotties, listing and the opportunity to get annoyed by something irrelevant. Often these lists include some really great irreverent commentary (I assume because I'm the only one who actually reads it they can get away with some brilliant randomness). The UGO.com (who, and also what?) 50 hottest women on TV list managed to throw in what I'd have to literally call bon mots, for example on the subject of America Ferrera:

"Yes, this sure is a big, funny world, isn't it? Throw some braces, bushy eyebrows and bad outfits on a beautiful young woman, and by Hollywood standards, you've got someone "ugly". Of course, we all know that Hollywood is the perfect arbiter of female body images. After all, they've done a bang up job in the past, so why should now be any different? ... it's about time the rest of the industry picked up on just how sexy those curves are."

Their choice for number 1 also made me very happy (a rare occurrence indeed when it comes to these lists). Mary-Louise Parker is indeed a buff ting, and Weeds is awesome. 'Nuff said.

The other list that I wanted to link to was this one of potential good directors for Batman 3 if Nolan steps down (beware of some spoilers for The Dark Knight). Sadly I didn't make the cut, but it was full of sensible suggestions nonetheless. I can't imagine why The Sib was accusing me of nerdiness, alright I did just download a comic but it took me longer to work out the viewing software. I think the geekdom initiation (and secret handshake lesson) are a ways off yet. The comic I downloaded was episode 17 of Buffy season 8 so beware of spoilers for it.

Episode 17 carried on the Fray crossover, which was interesting but a little bit confusing for me. I do want to get around to reading Fray at some point. The introduction stating that 'Buffy's fresh from another doomed relationship' kind of irked me, it's not as if she and Satsu had a (serious) relationship, and what I liked about that storyline was that Buffy finally had a chance to have a fun fling without their being despair and doom. I was pretty certain that the crazy dark haired seer being talked about was Dru (after all, who else could it be?) but the reveal at the end left me a bit dubious, this is where photorealism (or indeed real actors!) would come in useful, otherwise it isn't that easy to be certain that it actually is Drusilla. In fact I thought that image looked a bit like dark Willow... I'll just have to wait for episode 18, dammit! I loved the fact that Buffy actually got to time travel (that's something that never got explored on the show, although there was a time loop), and that little moment where ever-capable Buffy suddenly realises "this is really happening" was wonderful. I liked her whinging about the fact that future-English makes no sense, and her claim that she should have treated the English language better. There was also a hilarious moment where she realised that her stance in that flimsy dress meant that she was flashing her (orange polka dot) underwear, quite a departure from her behaviour in seasons 1 and 2.

I felt a bit like they were trying to at least vaguely set up the idea of Xander moving on and getting into a new relationship, although I could be reading too much into it. He just seemed a bit grabby with Rowena (and we all know that Xander has a Slayer-fetish so that would make sense). Whilst he wasn't acting at all inappropriately with Dawn I thought that perhaps the 'riding' set up/joke (combined with incidents in previous episodes, such as him falling into her giant sized camisole) might be an attempt to foreshadow something. Then again that's what's so fun about Buffy, it encourages viewers/readers to BYO subtext. There's always the possibility of having Xander end up with Dracula I suppose, but somehow I don't think there's going to be a triage of bi-/homo-/alternative sexuality for the main Scoobies, and Xander does really have to remain as the Everyman (and avatar of Joss). Right at the end Harth's speech about his twin sister being his 'true love' suggests there's going to be overtones of wacky vampire incest coming up. Oh the hilarity! Here endeth the season eight spoilers.

The letters page also introduced an excellent concept to me- pronoia. It's the opposite of paranoia, and apparently is the sneaking suspicion that the whole world is conspiring to shower you with blessings. Honestly that is sometimes how I feel when I get to feed my obsessions, yay there are shiny, pretty things! I did get around to reading Sugarshock! the other day too. It's up on myspace but I don't think the transitions are made very clear, so if you want to check it out here's part one, two and three. It's not the deepest thing in the world, but it's a really fun comic and you don't have to get too invested in it. I'd definitely recommend it (especially to you Nanzo!) and can see why it won awards.

Sin(chon) City

It feels so good to have actually started working in Sinchon! Finally starting to actually settle properly is wonderful, and it's great to be in this really cool, fun area (I'm so lucky to have actually got my first choice of branches anyway, and Sinchon is such a sought after destination). Having to commute from Naksongdae is a little annoying, but that won't be for too much longer at least.

One sad thing is that the fact that I'm moving (to the company housing in Hongdae, which is smack bang in the centre of the student district, as well as being a really cool area in terms of music, bars and clubs) is that I'll be taking someone else's apartment. A lot of the native speaker teachers are leaving pretty soon. The guy I replaced, Law, seemed really fun (and British), and now Jes, 2.0 and Dick are all going to be leaving in quick succession. It really kind of sucks because I get on really well with Jes and 2.0, and although I didn't get to spend much time with Law he seemed like a great guy too. He's actually gone on a motorbike trip (complete with video camera) to Jeju island at the moment, but he's coming back to Seoul soon. Jes is going back to the States for health and family reasons (and taking his ridiculously cute, if overly fond of my crotch, dog Soju with him), but all things being equal he should be back in September. Law and Jes are planning on getting jobs together relatively nearby and 2.0 will probably do a similar thing, plus he's dating our assistant manager, so it's not as if I'll never see them again. The fact that the staff were leaving en masse made me a bit worried (it doesn't really fill you with confidence), but they're mostly leaving just because they can get better paid jobs now that they've got a couple of years experience here under their belts.

Mostly Dick just seems to be following them. Nobody likes him very much. He was so rude to me when I first met him, and Y (who started about a month before me) said he was exactly the same with her, and then he ended up being her partner! To be fair every day since then he's made a lot of effort to be really nice to me, and randomly wrote down my name for me in Hangeul without me asking (it's just a little thing, but it is quite sweet and helpful). I feel a bit sorry for him because I think that he just doesn't really understand how to interact with people properly, but he's just so fucking condescending and smug all the time. It's weird to hear Jes being (relatively) vitriolic about Dick cos he's just one of those incredibly genial, easy going people who gets along with absolutely everyone and never seems to see the bad side in anyone.

The other native speakers, Dar and S, are staying put, at least for the time being!

The partner situation is a bit messed up as a result of all these changes, my partner was K, it's now mostly Clairebear (who sadly doesn't look anything like Hayden Panettiere, cos believe me I'd be all over that), but I think will switch back to K in a couple of weeks when Jes leaves. K is really fun and easy to get on with (actually she spent five years in England, but has carefully cultivated an American accent as it's more popular here- however she always slips when she says the word 'British'). When we go out though she always wants to be the centre of attention, which can be a bit tiring. It isn't hard for her to get attention by any means, she's stunningly gorgeous (she's rejected my marriage proposals so far on the grounds that our difference in ages is too great, but I'll persevere!), poised and an amazing dancer. She put this to great advantage the other night when she tried to get off with (and get drinks off of) two of Jes' friends at the same time. We were all glad that she was keeping Rus away since he's an annoying drunk, but we didn't like the fact that she was messing Scotty about. I normally don't like people who run around screaming "what up dawg?!" but Scotty's a Canadian on a mission to be as obnoxious as possible while claiming to be a citizen of the US. He also wears tartan trousers, cries about his girlfriend in public and offered to sleep on the floor for me. He's awesome.

As for the other Korean teachers, I get on really well with Y and love going out dancing with her (even if she has pretty appalling taste in guys!). Ser is also really fun (and practically has corporate sponsorship from the Korean air industry). Clairebear and Is are both real sweethearts, but they're kind of our resident 'good girls' and can barely finish a beer. I'd love to see the job description for the manager and assistant manager positions. Hans seems to think his job is mostly 'take the staff out for lots of food and booze; force feed the staff a lot of watermelon; fuel the staff's polo addiction; do not enforce any rules whatsoever' and D seems to think her entire job consists of running around in short skirts and patting people good naturedly. It's a great place to work as a result, everything is incredibly chilled. Also because I'm a girl I practically count as one of the Korean teachers so nobody cares what I wear which is excellent.

I haven't had too many lessons lately, partly because a lot of the university students (a large part of our clientele) are off enjoying their summer vacations, and also because I'm the newbie. I've been enjoying the down time, especially because I sometimes really need to have a nap (we have bunk beds!) when the drunkeness, hangovers and sleep-deprivation catch up with me. The joys of work are added to by absolutely awesome reception staff, it sounds like a little thing but it just makes work a lot easier and more fun. Lin was actually my first student in the mock lesson and she can be a bit solemn but she's really nice, V is totally insane but in a great way (and she has the best laugh ever!) and Raf speaks brilliant English which means that everything goes really smoothly (she came with me to set up a bank account, for example). We also have a lot of restaurants which deliver yummy, cheap food- which I appreciate an awful lot when I can't even be bothered to stumble out of the staff room and its comfy beds.

I offer some illustrative pictures filched from others for your delectation:


I wonder if you can tell which one I am? From left to right (excluding me) are Y, V, Lin and Christine (who has now left).


S and I being especially photogenic.


This is Computer Guy after Hans poured an excessive amount of soju into his beer and made him drink it, followed by a few shots for good measure. This is why Hans is an awesome boss.

I'm going to ban myself from writing about books, at least for a little while, I tried to write a short round-up of what I'd been reading in the last month and instead wrote three fairly long entries. Literature makes me long-winded; books make me babble! However, I would like to add one, oh just one, teeny point that I forgot about Atlas Shrugs- I really liked this quote:

"I like to think of fire held in a man's hand. Fire, a dangerous force, tamed at his fingertips. I often wonder about the hours when a man sits alone, watching the smoke of a cigarette, thinking. I wonder what great things have come from such hours. When a man thinks, there is a spot of fire alive in his mind--and it is proper that he should have the burning point of a cigarette as his one expression."

I don't smoke, but I find myself agreeing with the guy from the newsstand here. At least a burning cigarette fits entirely for me with the image of a great man that he's suggesting, probably along with a glass of whiskey. Plus it just makes me think of Tex Williams, and I doubt that that can ever be a bad thing.

Anyway I'm planning on doing a monthly book round-up post from here on out. The Buffy comics don't count as books however, so there may be something incredibly lengthy about them soon.

Atlast!

So I finally finished Atlas Shrugged. (Although I'm not sure that 'finally' is the word I ought to be using, it only took about a week and a half and I had to fit it in around life, it just feels as if I've been reading it for ages...)

Of course now that I've already babbled about it considerably I'm not sure that I'm going to end up with anything coherent to say about it as a whole. It isn't as if I'm under any obligation to write in any kind of structured way I suppose. It's weird, because when I started university I kind of hated the way that we had to write essays. I especially hated the fact that we had to consider other people's theories in depth, long rants which only considered my thoughts on a topic (with a few throwaway nods to broad schools of thoughts perhaps) that one could get away with at A Level were so much more preferable. Now, however, I seem to have been entirely retrained. Damn degree. I feel as if I should have been annotating my copy of the book, and as if I should now be reading obscure articles about it (although that might not be too easy since my Athens account expired a long time ago).

In all honesty that 'retraining' is probably a good thing in the long run. It pushes me to at least attempt to make relatively informed statements and arguments, in addition to loudly proclaiming my own opinions. Thankfully Spam (with all of the wisdom of his sixteen years) can't reach me all the way in Seoul to earnestly inform me that my opinions are just that, and I shouldn't state them as if they were universal facts since he's off sweltering in the Namibian heat building a school. I am thankful to various teachers, lecturers, writers and friends that I have at least a basic knowledge of political ideology, some philosophy and a fair bit of social science. Most of all I think that I'm indebted to Ian Adams the author of Political Ideology Today, which is honestly one of my favourite books and I could happily read it cover to cover repeatedly. I'm probably going to miss my highlighted copy before this year is through.

I still haven't worked out who the hell Francisco reminded me of, and it's bugging the hell out of me. It was especially strong earlier in the novel when he was in the position of a tempter, luring people to go on strike. Knowing me it'll probably turn out to be a Whedon or Sorkin character, and the cogs of my brain will probably finally find the answer for me to scream out at an utterly inappropriate moment. C'est la vie. I remember that after watching Dune (which I also still haven't read) I had an incredibly strong sense that the Fremen's blue eyes reminded me of... something which I just couldn't quite grasp. I drove our poor lecturer somewhere round the bend as she listed off lots of possibilities, most of which were obscure references to science fiction films or television shows that I have no knowledge of. When I finally worked out that it was Groo (a fairly minor character from Angel), I don't think she considered it to have been worth all of that effort.

John's radio broadcast (apparently around three hours long, which I can well believe- but I didn't mind the length here since it was conceived of as a speech, and so didn't feel false) slightly reminded me of a much shorter speech. Wes Mendell's in the Studio 60 pilot. The first couple of episodes of Studio 60 had me bubbling with excitement, I'm still kind of annoyed at the way it ended up. Here is a link to the clip from the pilot which culminates with said speech (and I'd completely forgotten that Felicity Huffman had a guest spot in the pilot, please she so is Dagny, enough with this Angelina nonsense). I'll also include this link to the cold open from, uh, The Cold Open for no reason other than it makes me laugh.

On the subject of Francisco, which I'm sure that I was discussing at some point, I was immediately convinced that Frank Adams was him as soon as I read the name 'Frank'. I didn't have to wait long for that reveal, but Hank's surprise at something that was so obvious was typical of a lot of the book. Again and again the reader becomes aware of something that a character desperately wants to know or should know, the identity of Eddie Willer's confidante for example. This had the effect of making me a bit exasperated with Hank, Dagny and Eddie time and time again for being so dense (and for their inevitable gasping when they discover the truth) even when, based on the knowledge available to them, they weren't actually being intensely stupid. It reminded me of Harry Potter a little, although I don't think anyone could be quite as dim witted as Harry (or gasp as much as Hermione). Luckily I love the word phrase hyphenate 'self-immolation' (and I'd like to point out that I'm the one who came up with the 'molating Marx thing, and probably plenty of the others even if I can't remember them... firing Foucault possibly?) otherwise I'd definitely be complaining loudly about its overuse.

I very much loved, in a pretty much unqualified way, Rand's attacks on Cartesian duality; the split between mind and body. I'm a bit confused by one aspect of her philosophy though, she seems to like Aristotle (whilst certainly not refraining from criticising him), but I'm sure at some point there was an incredibly disparaging remark about Plato's student and successor. (This is why I should have annotated, I'm never going to be able to find the quote again!) I assume that she meant Aristotle by that, although I suppose she could have just meant that she preferred Plato's philosophy, although I didn't see any evidence to support that.

Personally I feel that there's never been a proper free-market Capitalism experiment, just as there's never been a proper Communist one. Maybe it's because they only really exist as ideal types, and life is a lot more messy, but its certainly (also?) because they haven't been allowed. Dagny (and the others) look towards an idealised past (where Nat Taggart roamed around) of perfect laissez-faire capitalism. I'm pretty sure that that didn't exist. The free market has never truly been free, I'll come back to Benjamin Tucker for example: he argued that the four main monopolies (money, land, tariffs and patents) would need to be broken down first before a truly free market could be set up. We see examples of it all the time, the US government cries that the market ought to be free! Except for pharmaceuticals. Importing cheap Canadian drugs would hurt American producers, and that would be wrong. Repeat ad infinitum with whatever it is this week.

I'm sorry, but I'm coming back to Marx again. I just feel that Rand (and she's certainly not alone) misinterprets his views on Capitalism. He didn't hate it. He didn't want to destroy it. He thought that it was excellent, in a limited way. It unleashed enormous productive power, and allowed for innovation in a way that previous epochs had not. He didn't provide a moral criticism of Capitalism in his work, and he in fact explicitly argues against trying to bring about the untimely end of Capitalism. He simply believed that Capitalism was beset by inherent contradictions (just like the previous socio-economic systems), and as a result would eventually collapse and give way to a new social system.

Needless to say, he wasn't exactly right about how it played out. I'd definitely be interested in finding out if Rand ever explicitly discussed her attitude to Marx's writing. In Atlas Shrugged she doesn't, but I feel (perhaps wrongly) that some of her criticisms are directed that-a-way. There's a lot of stuff in Marx's writing that I think Rand must have agreed with, not least his emphasis on rationality and of course that famous sentence from Theses on Feuerbach, " The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it".

Of course I suppose that her criticisms were actually directed more at the Russian governement then at their (claimed) ideological underpinnings. It's hard to work out when the novel's supposed to be set, since it's futuristic in some senses but also rapidly retreating into the past. Combined with that is the fact that the characters are often looking to an idealised industrial past, which often permeates their world and time, especially as the setting of the railroad (and to a lesser extent the mines) has a distinctly nineteenth century quality to it. In my head I kind of split the difference and seem to be imagining something vaguely 1930s-esque (I suppose I can partly blame this on Carnivale too). I get the impression that Rand was explicitly critiquing Roosevelt's policies, and I can understand why her ideas would clash with his "make work" philosophy. However, at the same time I can see similarities between his New Deal and the great minds of Atlas Shrugged trying to rebuild the world after its destruction... (Of course it also makes me think of Toby's revulsion at the idea of including "the era of big government is over" in the speech in He Shall From Time to Time in which I don't think the name "Roosevelt" is ever spoken, but I swear that you can actually see what Toby's thinking. I love Richard Schiff a little too much.)

Well maybe the real problem with a university education is it creates the desire to identify fleeting similarities and synthesise ideas?

I also felt that the arguments against the 'mystics of muscle' seemed to be more of an argument against the Functionalist school of thought than anything else (especially with the organic analogy). I suppose Rand wouldn't particularly like them, but it felt a little weird in a rant that seemed mostly against altruism and collectivism. I also wondered if the fact that both John and Ragnar raise the issue of income tax as important was construed as an explicit reference to Thoreau. I'm glad that there was a reference to the fact that paper money is assumed to be worth the same as gold, I think people should pay more attention to the fact that the world's economy is basically held together by a mass delusion. No one's on the gold standard anymore, and there might very well come a time when you don't really care how many flimsy pieces of paper you're holding or how many zeroes are at the the end of the number on the computer screen. Hopefully by then I'll be back in London with my pumpkin patch and fruit trees though, so I won't really care.

I would have liked to see religion addressed more. Rand dismisses religion (and I personally don't have a problem with that), but it wasn't really dealt with much within the novel, there weren't really any religious characters. After reading the introduction I'm a tad annoyed that the Father Amadeus character was cut, but I might have had to spend some time trying to work out where his name fits on the awful/awesome axis if he hadn't been.

Rand belittles the sociological/interpretivist-style criticisms of science. I will freely admit that sometimes these criticisms can be take way too far. I love Bruno Latour, he has an immense and respectful appreciation of science and he acknowledges that there are such things as objective facts. However, he points out that science in the process of occurring isn't a series of objective facts, and argues that stating this isn't a rejection of science. I'd also like to add that Rand actually endorses one of those criticisms of science without acknowledging it, she's disgusted by the idea of state funded science, and that's something which many of the sociological criticisms of science have highlighted, as well as investigating other ways in which the production of scientific knowledge is effected by other (subtler) factors.

The book definitely contained far too much of an Orientalist attitude, an extreme overuse of the word 'savage' and an apparent damning of everything 'non-American'. I don't have a problem with the novel's pro-American sentiment (nor do I have a problem with it in anything penned by Aaron Sorkin), even if I don't endorse it. I do appreciate passionate feeling like that, and basically anyone who subscribes to the Granny Weatherwax school of philosophy:

"...well, you wouldn't catch me sayin' things like "There are two sides to every question," and "We must respect other people's beliefs." You wouldn't find me just being gen'rally nice in the hope that it'd all turn out right in the end, not if that flame was burning in me like an unforgivin' sword."

I know that Rand's views on race and gender (and other things too of course) are a product of her time. I expect some things to crop up that I dislike but can understand as a result of this. I think it's just a bit too much though. I have to contend that in some areas she was just a bit of an idiot, and I'd be interested in reading Feminist Interpretations of Ayn Rand, especially Brownmiller's 'Ayn Rand: A Traitor to her Own Sex'. I assume that that title is there for shock value, at least to some extent, and that there is some appreciation of Dagny's character (and indeed Cherryl's, although it would have been nice to see her develop a bit more before her death). I assume that there's plenty of criticism of the (relatively?) sexually submissive role that Dagny randomly gets cast in, which I'd definitely be interested to read.

I've never understood why someone would think that I would want my cake if I wasn't going to eat it too. Claiming that one can't eat one's cake and have it too at least makes sense.

It's a good thing that John was the one who started the movement, if people were wandering about asking who Francisco D'Anconia or Ragnar Danneskjold were all the time the book might have been a lot shorter. Certainly it might have taken the government a lot less time to track John down at the end if he didn't have such a common name. I felt worried that things were going to take a tragic turn when Dagny led them to John, and I'm glad that instead there was a happy, hopeful ending. (And that Dagny wasn't punished for being a silly, emotional woman.) I felt kind of sad for poor Eddie though. I liked the idea of the torture machine- it was really gruesome (and the idiots torturing Galt almost to the point of death because they were adamant that he had to help them were captivating), the machine itself kind of reminded me of the torture device in The Princess Bride. The idea of trying to torture someone with the sound of their own heartbeat was effective, and it reminded me of the horror that one of Doc Benton's victims in the Supernatural episode Time is on my Side who has a heart rate monitor still attached to him from when he was jogging suffered.

The idea that it's impossible for the nasty bad guy politicians to step aside at the right time idly made me think of F.W. de Clerk.

I know that it's silly, but I think I would have liked a bit more science. I know that Ayn Rand wasn't a scientist. Partly it's just because the refractor rays made me roll my eyes and laugh out loud. It felt like an episode of Johnny Quest, especially with the whole Shambhala feel to Galt's Gulch! I would have loved some science geekery (even if it was complete and utter nonsense) to provide a bit more of an explanation to Galt's super awesome motor, rather than the constant solemn assurance that it was something amazing that would have made the world better, without details to flesh it out and make it sound more realistic.

I think I've come round to the idea of Rand the novelist more. When I first started reading I thought that I was reading a novel designed as propaganda of, or at least promotion of, a specific view point. On completion I can say that it does (mostly) feel like a novel. I've also become convinced that she wasn't engaging with philosophical or political theory (other than her own anyway) as much as I thought she would.

Sadly there was no orgy finale. There was a mention of orgies towards the end, but they're discussed in a very disparaging way. I can at least console myself with the not stated (but clearly implicit assumption) that Hank and Francisco were walking off into the world together. Obviously.

I didn't clock that Ayn Rand was Russian until I read the biographical information in the reader's guide. I guess that explains some of her anger a little bit. It makes sense that Rand wasn't her real name, I think it would be too much of a coincidence if her surname actually was a currency! I'd kind of had her pegged as a Catholic what with all the emphasis on guilt. I should have paid more attention to The First Wives Club where Brenda explains that she's half-Catholic, but that its the Jews that really own guilt. Unless that was actually in another book, which is possible. My brain is addled. Maybe that's why I think that there should be a cartoon of Atlas' shrug (as in the item of clothing). That logically seems like one of those things that only sleep-deprivation makes funny.

A little more Shrugging

Oh dear. On inspection I discovered that my incredibly verbose last post failed to include the thing that I'd found most irksome about Atlas Shrugged. Namely that it's based on a very bad analogy, Atlas held up the sky, not the world. It's just such a glaring error. I sincerely doubt that no one's written about it! I really need to hurry up and finish reading the damn book (silly colleagues, food and youtube distracting me from my goals) so I can read the introduction and afterword, and then give in to my urge to google...

I know I said that I didn't want to write too much about the book until I finished it, but I think that I might as well express these thoughts as they occur to me before I forget them. Consider them to be first reactions, and open to extensive revisions in the future!

Firstly, I'd just like to point out that Dagny Taggart is an awful, awful name. Who would call their child that? It's so ugly! Tinky Holloway, however, is an excellent name. This is a point I don't think I'm going to need to revise. Also I think it is possible for a book's characters to overuse the phrase "I know it", especially if they insist on constantly doing it grimly.

More seriously, as I've continued with my reading I've noticed less of the submitting woman syndrome, and a bit more balance. I sincerely hope that this trend continues. Even if it does, I'd still like the earlier behaviour to be considered and questioned by Dagny. I like the fact that she sometimes gets to dress up and revel in her femininity, and have that not be separate from her identity as an executive. However, I think that this is slightly tainted by the fact that most of the time she's wearing a nice dress she ends up in some protracted romantic situation. On the subject of Dagny's clothing, I absolutely could not take John's confession of love (and stalking watching over her) seriously, because telling her that he spent the past twelve years watching her from the tunnels below and could sculpt her legs from memory made it sound a lot like he had a fetish for upskirt peeping. That sort of thing can get you fired here you know.

I complained about Rand glossing over large parts of American history. There at least was a reference to Manhattan being sold by the indigenous people for a small sum in glass beads. I could have done without the 'stupid savages' implication. (And anyway, it's not as if that story is supported by any actual facts).

Something that I find kind of jarring (and certainly not just in this book) is that the characters are more wordy than season 7's speech-happy General Buffy. They often give speeches, and I don't have a problem with that if they're supposed to be giving speeches. A fair bit of the time though, they aren't. I don't think it's reasonable for there to be quite so many multi-page monologues. It's a common literary device, but I tend to find it incredibly annoying. That, combined with the fact that they all seem to have an amazing ability to recall pretty much anything that anyone has ever said to them and quote it verbatim and the fact that several of the characters have definite Marty-Lou characteristics and are just too perfect kind of encapsulates what worries me about reading a novel which has a politico-philosophical agenda. The characters are sometimes sacrificed to the author's greater plan and it means that they don't always ring true.

I don't want to give the impression that I'm pissing all over the book though. I'm not, at all. I'm still definitely enjoying it. I wouldn't bother to consider all of this if I wasn't. I like the way that it lightly picks at the flaws of what it criticises, I especially liked this:

There, he thought, was the final abortion of the creed of collective interdependence, the creed of non-identity, non-property, non-fact: the belief that the moral stature of one is at the mercy of the action of another.

I've also thought about it a bit, and I know that a lot of Marx's writing that has what I would characterise as a more individualist bent, and focuses more on ideas of freedom might not have surfaced (or if it had then might not have been widely known) when Atlas Shrugged was written (it was first published in 1957). I also found this Popper quote to be appropriate:

Marx tried, and although he erred in his main doctrines, he did not try in vain. He opened and sharpened our eyes in many ways. A return to pre-Marxian social science is inconceivable. All modern writers are indebted to Marx, even if they do not know it. This is especially true of those who disagree with his doctrines.

The rest of what I have to say is motivated by mere idle curiosity. Firstly, I'm just intrigued as to whether Midas Mulligan ever explains why the Atlantis valley wasn't on any maps? Did I miss something?

Secondly, does "Piss" Harry King in the Discworld books remind anyone of Hank Rearden a little? Or am I just reaching... He is listed on the television trope page for the self made man (which is interesting because I don't think that he's ever been portrayed on television) but I'll take it as evidence that I'm right, even though it isn't that at all.

I'm glad that I'm reading the book in conjunction with (slowly, slowly) watching Carnivale. They're set to similar backdrops so it's nice to have them both captivating my imagination at the same time. There was an awesome quote from Dolan, which for some reason I can't find, about him wanting to help Iris to find her brother so that he can gain a larger audience and get richer. It sounded like something that could have come straight out of Atlas Shrugged.

I'm loving a lot of the Carnivale script in fact. "One of my titties is bigger than the other" is one of the best chat-up lines ever (I don't think it does surpass "You got a raisin? Well how about a date then!" though) and I feel that more people ought to use "percolated" as a synonym for horny.

[Oh, words, words, words... I'm so sick of enamoured by words, (even though) I get words all day through!]

Um, I gotta book...

^ That's one Buffy line that I've never actually been too sure of... either she means that she has to go sort out her library issues (which is plausible) or it's valley girl for 'go'. According to Stephen Fry 'book' has become textspeak for 'cool', since the young folk are too lazy to deal with the errors of predictive texting.

'Book' was also the name of one of my favourite Firefly characters. Maybe I should just say that he was one of the characters, since I can't really think of anyone on Firefly who wasn't one of my favourites, including the SpJew.

Anyway, I felt like doing a round-up post about what I've been reading in the last month or so.

I'll start with the book I was reading up to my flight out, Scenes of Clerical Life by George Eliot. I'd actually read it before, but years ago and I couldn't really remember much of it. My ailing memory is a bit of a problem! There's quite a lot of classics that I feel that way about, plus I don't think that I fully appreciated what was going on when I read them as a tween, like with Tess of the D'Urbervilles. I added a few books like this that I thought were in need of a re-read to my 'to read' shelf, and I'd just happened to have got up to Scenes by the time I was leaving. I had intended to bring the next few with me, which I think included Gone With the Wind, but due to my incredibly overweight bag I had to leave them behind. The package that my mother attempted to send to me included them I think, but it was intercepted because of the deodorant and she's waiting for me to have a settled abode before she makes a second attempt.

Scenes of Clerical Life is basically a collection of three, very slightly related, short stories. I have a bit of a love/hate relationship with short stories. I think that in the right hands (such as the paws of Daphne du Maurier, Roald Dahl, Philip K Dick or Andrew Davies, and if I can include novellas like St Mawr and The Virgin and the Gypsy in my definition of 'a short story' then I'd like to add DH Lawrence to that list) they can be excellent, and provide satisfying 'bite size' fiction. However, I've experienced quite a lot of fairly rubbish short stories that just make me feel as if I'm wasting my time. I think it can be quite hard for something so short to draw you in and actually make you interested in what's happening. I definitely prefer reading a load of short stories by one author together rather than a collection of tales from different writers (even if they are on a similar theme) because you at least become acclimatised to the author's rhythm and style. Also sometimes you get those nice links between the stories which just gives you a little something extra and makes it feel as if the stories are more than just these 'shorts'. I like that kind of thing anyway, the subtle nod to the careful reader- like in Sharon Creech's teenage fiction for example, all her books (or at least the ones that I read) have a different female protagonist, but they're all somehow linked together even if they don't know it, and there's a small mention of one of them in each book (perhaps the heroine's aunt mentions a girl she might get on with, for example).

As far as short stories go I found Scenes to be a good collection. I suppose it helped that they weren't particularly short either, they felt meaty enough. The first two stories, 'The Sad Fortunes of the Reverend Amos Barton' and Mr Gilful's Love Story' were both fairly enjoyable and showcased Eliot's wit and storytelling ability. Whilst they were often funny, they did both have sad (and kind of abrupt) endings. The third and final part, 'Janet's Repentance' is much, much darker, being about an alcoholic, abused wife. It isn't really a subject matter that lends itself to humour, but then again Juno was an excellent comedy about teenage pregnancy. I certainly thought that 'Janet's Repentance' was well written and touching, but I found certain parts of it a bit hard to swallow- namely the emphasis on how to be (and how one should be) a dutiful wife. Overall I didn't feel that this book was necessarily a masterpiece, but nor did I expect it to be- I think that it's an especially accessible 'in' to Eliot's work and I'm glad that I took the time to re-read it. I certainly want to re-read The Mill on the Floss (I couldn't find my copy at home anyway but I'm sure I can buy one out here) and maybe eventually actually get around to reading Adam Bede!

I don't think I need to say too much about my experience of reading Everything is Illuminated for the second time since I've already babbled a fair bit about it. Suffice to say that I obviously enjoyed it immensely again, and it still managed to make me sob like a small child. I came away from it with the sense that maybe it wasn't the slice of perfection I had thought when I first read it though, and that sometimes the ever-so-postmodern literary techniques were a little bit forced. Wikipedia tells me that I'm not the only one who feels like this by a long shot (scroll down to the 'Criticism' section), so I don't feel like a traitor! I'd quite like to get around to reading The Time Traveller's Wife as well to compare how that feels the second time around, as it (like Everything is Illuminated) is a book that I read fairly recently and was just utterly in love with. Both were initally lent to me by Spires incidentally, who generally has good taste in books, although I wasn't overly enamoured with The Consolations of Philosophy or The Aquariums of Pyongyang.

The next book I got around to reading was Stardust, my going away present from Naomi. I'd already watched the film, which is a bad, bad way to go around doing things and I heartily disapprove of myself for it. I preferred the book to the film, although I still think that the film is definitely enjoyable and actually rather different from the book (I rewatched it on Sunday in a DVD-bang while scoffing down tasty ice cream, and it was an excellent hangover cure). Neil Gaiman is an author that I've always known I'd adore and yet I haven't read all that much by him; I read Coraline several years ago which was enjoyable enough and had some excellent one-liners, but it is a book aimed at a younger audience and I adore Good Omens which he co-wrote with my beloved Terry Pratchett. I've also watched the entirety of Neverwhere which is excellent and comes highly recommended from me (and it's alright to watch that before reading it, which I will get around to one day, since it was a television show first so ha) even though it does of course look incredibly dated. I'm really glad that I read (and watched) Stardust, and hopefully it will encourage me to read more Gaiman stuff. It was just a really fun and whimsical book, and I'm very glad that it wasn't just a cut and dry fairy tale with a happy ending, and even though it isn't a major detail I really liked that Tristan's mother wasn't particularly motherly and was instead kind of harsh, proud and cunning.

After that I got into my first batch of book binges (from the seven storey Tesco's bookshop), starting with The Picture of Dorian Gray. I enjoyed it and I'm glad that I've finally read it, it was certainly fun to find so many Wilde-isms in their original habitat. I feel a little weird that so many of his characters' sayings get attributed to him as a person, obviously they originate from him and often they may very well express his feelings entirely (possibly proven by the fact that he recycled them and put them in the mouths of other characters), I just feel that when people are quoting his characters they ought to at least parenthetically point that out! Reading Dorian Gray was a little uncomfortable for me because although Lord Henry is the obvious avatar of Wilde, I think there was also a lot of him in Basil, and it's so sad to read about Basil's obsession with Dorian, and feel how eerily it foreshadows Wilde's own devastating love for Bosie. I could not help myself from imagining Dorian as looking an awful lot like Jude Law playing Bosie in Wilde as a result. The actual story of Dorian Gray is fairly simplistic (and I wasn't aware of just how common it was at the time) but it's a very well-written and well-executed book. I liked the insights provided by the introduction in my copy (although I really think that these analytical introductions ought to be shunted to the end of the book because I never read them first since I don't want to be spoiled!), although I think that counting the amount of times the word "wild" was used and trying to use that as evidence of Wilde's egotism was stretching things a little far.

My copy also included some very well-written short stories, in fact I think I'd be happy to add Oscar Wilde to my list of favourite short-story authors! 'The Happy Prince' was a sweet tale (although I felt a slight objection the almost jarring religious twist at the end), 'The Birthday of the Infanta' was enjoyable with a sudden twist at the end, and 'Lord Arthur Savile's Crime' was brilliant and darkly hilarious. I'd definitely recommend checking out some of his lesser known shorter works like these to anyone who likes short stories and/or his better known stuff, and I would certainly like to read more of his fairy tales.

Next I (finally!) read The Catcher in the Rye. I guess it's one of those books that everyone feels that they ought to read, but I've never acted on that impulse (probably because I never found a copy of it in the house). I kind of wish that I had done, because I feel that if I'd read it at the right time in my life I might have enjoyed it a lot more, as it was I could see its merits but it just didn't do much for me. I can't personally really understand why people rave about it. It isn't a bad book at all and it did have some amusing observations but it just wasn't saying anything particularly earth shattering. It does an excellent job of capturing an annoyed teenager's voice, but that isn't enough to make it amazing, and quite frankly it isn't the most interesting point of view in the world (unless we're talking about Gossip Girl, natch). I think that I have a bit of bias against fiction written in the first person as well, which probably doesn't help. The fact that I was a little underwhelmed by The Catcher in the Rye has led me to accept a difficult truth about myself that I'm finding a little hard to cope with: I am not a fourteen year old boy. It's pretty sad.

Although The Great Gatsby was also written in the first person, I enjoyed it a lot more than The Catcher in the Rye. I've always had a complete misconception about The Great Gatsby, I think it's because I read a (much longer) book as a kid called 'The Great...' something, maybe it was 'The Great Grey'? I'm fairly certain that it was alliterative. So they've sort of been vaguely connected in my psyche, giving me the impression that The Great Gatsby had something to do with chases, and possibly mystical creatures of some kind. Those impressions have now been properly debunked and I'm happy to announce that I think it's a great, and tragic, book. It's a very touching story, and Nick makes an excellent dry, detached narrator. My interest in J2 AU fic began at about the same time as I was reading this, and it was kind of weird that I was reading this at the same time (please be warned that there's an awful lot of gay sex, drugs, meanness and prostitution if you click on that link), which although completely different from The Great Gatsby had one very similar element: the idea of a person being completely besotted with someone, and holding on to that for so long instead of moving on. I often find that when I become interested in something, such as a book, I find similarities with it everywhere though, and I'm sure that that happens to other people too.

My trio of first person novels was completed by The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time, and I definitely feel that it's a form that I could do without reading for a little while. Like The Catcher in the Rye, I feel that this book is a little overrated. It is an interesting view point and I think that mostly Mark Haddon writes well, but (again like The Catcher in the Rye) it feels a little 'light' and fluffy, it kind of reminded me of Tuesdays with Morrie as well. I think that it's lazy writing to just create a scenario where your audience is going to feel sympathy for your character/s, I want something more, I don't know how to define what exactly it is but it makes a book resonate 'deeply'. I also felt a bit weird about Haddon's choice to write from the point of view of an autistic boy (especially as it isn't actually explained in the book that he is autistic, unless you count the blurb), whilst I suppose that it is awareness raising I felt as if he was somewhat exploiting his first hand experience of working with autistic people. I'd really love to force my parents to read this book and get their impressions of it, since they both have experience of working with autistic children (my mother mostly with very young children and my father more with teens). I also felt that the ending wasn't very satisfying. Overall I thought that it was an interesting and ambitious idea for a book, but it just wasn't something amazing and not really my type of book, though I can appreciate what other people find likable about it without completely judging them.

I did however feel rather let down when I read Dead Poets Society. Being as I'm not much of a film person it shouldn't come as too much of a surprise that I've never actually seen the film, so when I saw the book I figured that it would be a great idea to read it. Too late I discovered that the film isn't based on the book, but the other way around- the book is inspired by the film. When I realised that I didn't expect it to be particularly great, even so I wasn't expecting it to be so bad. It's especially irritating because it could be good, yet doesn't deliver. I'd still be interested in watching the film because I can imagine a lot of the ideas that don't quite work in the book being realised successfully on screen, and it's a little annoying that if and when I do watch it I'm already going to know exactly what's going to happen! I'm kind of pissed at this book for not being good enough to like, since it does have elements which I really could enjoy- I like passion for writing, and I really like Walt Whitman! It probably doesn't help that I'm not the biggest fan of poetry though. I certainly think that if this book were fleshed out more and didn't feel quite so rushed it might be more enjoyable, and I'd definitely veto idiotic teenage boys claiming they're in love with a girl after meeting her for about 30 seconds, along with idiotic teenage boys running around a cave whooping 'like savages' if I'd been in charge. I suppose I really must come to the conclusion that I'm definitely not a teenage boy, and just stick to reading smutty school boy fic.

Once I'd finished that book I began with the spoils of my Kyobo trip. The Kyobo book store is really awesome, and huuuge- although the English language section obviously doesn't take up the majority of the store. It was still pretty sizable and impressive though. I've started with Atlas Shrugged and from the looks of things I might be reading it for a while, it's over a thousand pages and I'm only about three quarters of the way through. To be fair though I haven't really been reading it much at home, mostly just when I'm on the train (which is kind of funny because while it isn't actually about trains, a lot of the time it's about trains) or sometimes when there's been a lull at work. It's a pretty long book though, about equivalent to The Lord of the Rings, and that's kind of a trilogy, even if it isn't supposed to be read separately, and anyway that's stuffed full of appendices which fill up a lot of the pages. I don't have a problem with it being long, but I wish it wasn't so bloody big, it takes up most of my handbag all by itself!

I don't want to write too much about it, because I've resolved to reserve judgement until I've actually finished it, plus I haven't really researched (or even wikipedia'd) because I really don't want to be spoiled, but I'm just going to share my impressions so far. First off, I like it. More than I thought I would, if I'm honest. Mostly I think that it's well-written (although there's the odd sentence that makes me roll my eyes and wish it had been better edited...and the mere fact of the book's length makes me think that an editor could definitely have been useful) and very thoughtful. It consists of well constructed arguments, and it demands that you think out your objections and counter-arguments carefully rather than going with an vague, intuitive feeling about something. I don't think that I necessarily agree with Rand's arguments, but that doesn't matter. It's nice to just read and consider well argued theory. I do feel a little weird about the fact that I'm reading fiction (that isn't simply an allegory or a satire) that seems to have been explicitly created, at least in part, to promote an ideology but I also know that if that doctrine sat further to the left I'd probably find it a little easier to swallow, so I probably shouldn't complain about it.

I certainly feel that it's often less of a defence of selfishness than it thinks it is. Maybe that's just my personal interpretation because I think that 'selfishness' still has a negative gloss to it, in the way that a defence of egotism or self-interest probably wouldn't to me. Even so, I don't really buy the idea that these characters are necessarily all that selfish. They're well rounded composite characters rather than caricatures, which is definitely a good thing, but they're also just incredibly noble most of the time. They demonstrate time and time again that they subscribe to a higher morality, to certain ideas of what is inherently right- and it doesn't just happen as a by-product of their selfishness at all.

I'm glad that the novel doesn't hide from just how American it is, although I would like it to at least acknowledge that this 'selfishness' that it lauds is a value (if indeed it is one) which applies uniquely to a very specific context. I think the idea that Capitalism arose in the States as a rejection of the idea of slavery is an interesting one (merely mentioned as a throwaway comment thus far, but I'd love to see it expanded on), but I'd also like the book to maybe at least touch on America's history of genocide and slavery. I think it paints a very skewed version of American history, not only in largely omitting these very obvious points, but also comitting the common sin of completely ignoring the importance of collectivist ideas, and yes even socialist ones, on the early history of the USA.

It does definitely strike a chord with me. It has these beautiful ideals, which I can appreciate even if I don't necessarily agree with. I started off rolling my eyes a little at the ideas it was presenting. I was thinking "sure, I'd love to go and live in a wood cabin (with wireless) and ignore everyone", but I didn't think that the book was going to actually create this awesome enclave (hidden by some hilarious comic book style technology) where the 'deserters' could live happily apart from the rest of the world. The plot is doing nothing less than embodying everything wonderful about anarchism, and crucially it isn't only the (primarily American) individualist strand (embodied by Thoreau) but definitely also contains ideas that resonate with Proudhon's, Tolstoy's and even the good parts of syndicalism.

The abject hatred towards Marxism (and indeed the word 'contradiction'!) expressed in the book makes me a little sad. I don't think that Rand's vibrant support of the free market is necessarily entirely at odds with socialism, especially that of a strongly anarchist bent- like Benjamin Tucker's theories for example. Obviously I can understand Rand's outrage and disgust at the way she saw 'Communism' being implemented in her life time, but I don't think that that should lead to an outright dismissal of Marx. I think that their theories have some common ground, he too wanted the best of the best! In fact I can imagine Karl Marx as actually fitting in quite well with a lot of her characters (although I don't think she would have liked Engels very much)...

I definitely have some problems with the way that she writes about women. Dagny is a very strong and likable female character (who clearly looks an awful lot like Felicity Huffman in the Sports Night days, she even dresses like her) but I really hate a lot of her romantic and sexual relationships. Although Rand creates an eloquent defence of pleasure seeking, arguing against allowing sex to be tainted by guilt, I can't stand the way Dagny is constantly submitting and giving herself to be 'used' by her lovers. Sometimes the male characters seem to be submitting too, but it is to passion, rather than to a woman. I find it to be incredibly grating. Also, the most 'evil' character book appears to be Dagny's opposite, Hank's wife Lilian (I'm not entirely convinced that the 'Lil-' name is unintentional either). She's definitely a despicable person, but I'm not sure that she deserves to be painted as the absolute worst character in the book simply because she's "not-Dagny". I hope at least that the motives for her behaviour are explored.

Earlier I felt that part of the novel was basically a love story between Francisco and Hank, now it feels more like one between Francisco and John. I suppose I can just hold out hope that the free love angle gets pursued, and that there's a better orgy than in the Perfume movie (the one in the book was just dandy) in the offing. I also desperately need some respite from the fact that no less than four of the main characters are now in love with Dagny, and I wouldn't be entirely surprised if that toll grew a little. I don't know if this is a brand of Mary Sue-ism, but it's certainly irritating.

I so knew that as soon as I claimed I wasn't going to write much about this book right now I was doomed to fail. I'll probably write more when I've finished it.


I've also been entertaining myself with this awesome blog which allows you to read comics online. I'm not all that much of a comic fan, although I really adore X-Men for example, I'm much more au fait with the cartoon than the actual comics (and also the first two films which were great, and check out this fantastic review for some of the reasons I hated the third one). Even though I obviously utterly adore all things Whedonesque, I've never actually read any of the Buffy, Angel or Firefly comics, or even Astonishing X-Men. Even when I found out that Joss himself was taking them helm for a Buffy season 8 in comic form I debated whether I wanted to get invested. Silly, silly me. Scroll down to the bottom of this page if you want to check out season 8, which I do recommend doing (although I've only just started episode 5 myself).

I was also giggling at the woobie trope post. I especially loved that for both Buffy and Supernatural a blanket statement was needed to explain how much trauma pretty much all the characters face. I really don't understand how Mulder didn't make the cut though, there's a boy who seems like he could really use a hug.

A fairly tenuous leap (which might make a smidge more sense in a sec) brings me to something that I've been pondering: is there a term for a love of Jews? Cos if there isn't, can I please suggest that the word Semiphilia needs to come into effect, like now? Especially so I can describe Kristin Chenowith as a Semiphiliac. This picspam goes a way to proving it, if her love of Aaron Sorkin wasn't enough to do that anyway. (Did you know that they're back together? Maybe his overly-revealing, highly disturbing analysis of their relationship and subsequent break up as portrayed by Matt and Harriet in Studio 60 somehow won her back, or maybe she agreed to give him another chance if he swore to never, ever do something like that again. Who knows.) The picspam mentions a lot of the reasons why I adore Kristin Chenowith, but I figure that they can handle being restated a few times: she was Glinda (and that's just awesome), she's great in Pushing Daisies, she somehow wasn't annoying in The West Wing even though she should have been, it is almost impossible to believe that her and Allison Janney are the same species and, yes, her breasts. Since David Duchovny somehow managed to make his way into said picspam (for reasons that I don't entirely understand), I'm prompted to ask if there's such a thing as Demisemiphilia? Can I be in charge of all the words now please world?