![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
stephbgDay 4 of the new drug regime and I feel compelled to report... nothing of pharmacological interest.
Instead, I managed three shopping/errand outings, some strategic wielding of silicone sealant, some laundry, a Princess vet report, and some Princess troubleshooting. I managed a few paragraphs on The Book (as something of a gesture, but it's A Speech, so it's tricky), admired shiny things, and failed to panic or indeed be unduely upset at the loud and irritating 18th birthday party across the road.
See, the new drugs did nothing at all today :P
Rewatched The Matrix Reloaded for possibly the first time since the initial WTF? experience in the cinema. Cleverly watched it with (English) subtitles to counteract the terrible sound balance swallowing the vocals, the thumping local bass track over the road, and inefficient bullshit dialogue. This time I was prepared, and paid very close attention at the right moments and ignored the rest (being the most). This time I knew the action scenes were all just a little bit too long, and featured creepily bendy computer models. Flaws are far less distracting if they're robbed of their power to surprise.
Hmmmm. Much the same logic applies to my recent re-read of Scott Sigler's Ancestor, which needs a post. In case it never comes: it's a much better book than I believed when I read it first. This time:
(a) It was not read in a single post-con-haze page-turning reading session.
(b) I was not comparing it to the quality of science and characterisation in Infected and Contagious.
(c) I knew exactly which handful of sentences contained the critical science, watched out for them, read them carefully, and referenced back to external explanatory sources. Yes, the science (as fiction) DOES work, but only if the reader works hard too. I still contend that it's buried in sub-optimal editing and pacing and is easy to misunderstand. I'm no genious, but I do interpret technical text for a living, yanno?
(d) Having removed the distraction of the mis-understood science I didn't spend the rest of the book waiting for explanations that never came, but could sit back and enjoy the action, which I already knew was done well. Running, screaming, shooting, blood splatter, all done nicely. Well, not "nicely" per se. Messily, fast, and heart-thumpingly.
(e) Still had a little trouble visualising the monsters, but was not quite so overwhelmingly distracted by the cow markings (and the genetics of cow coat patterning even amongst full clones).
(f) Still found the government pursuit subplot sadly under-utilised.
Perhaps there's a place for a Swancon panel about second readings/watchings of initially disappointing works? The difference between first and second impressions, and the role of expectations on both first exposure and second exposure? I watched Indiana Jones and The Temple of Doom last night I and I quite thoroughly retained the dislike of the female lead I acquired on first sight.
Perhaps for purposes of guest involvement I should reread the Sean Williams book I didn't enjoy (to my surprise) and see if I can appreciate it more on the second round :-)
Tired now.
Instead, I managed three shopping/errand outings, some strategic wielding of silicone sealant, some laundry, a Princess vet report, and some Princess troubleshooting. I managed a few paragraphs on The Book (as something of a gesture, but it's A Speech, so it's tricky), admired shiny things, and failed to panic or indeed be unduely upset at the loud and irritating 18th birthday party across the road.
See, the new drugs did nothing at all today :P
Rewatched The Matrix Reloaded for possibly the first time since the initial WTF? experience in the cinema. Cleverly watched it with (English) subtitles to counteract the terrible sound balance swallowing the vocals, the thumping local bass track over the road, and inefficient bullshit dialogue. This time I was prepared, and paid very close attention at the right moments and ignored the rest (being the most). This time I knew the action scenes were all just a little bit too long, and featured creepily bendy computer models. Flaws are far less distracting if they're robbed of their power to surprise.
Hmmmm. Much the same logic applies to my recent re-read of Scott Sigler's Ancestor, which needs a post. In case it never comes: it's a much better book than I believed when I read it first. This time:
(a) It was not read in a single post-con-haze page-turning reading session.
(b) I was not comparing it to the quality of science and characterisation in Infected and Contagious.
(c) I knew exactly which handful of sentences contained the critical science, watched out for them, read them carefully, and referenced back to external explanatory sources. Yes, the science (as fiction) DOES work, but only if the reader works hard too. I still contend that it's buried in sub-optimal editing and pacing and is easy to misunderstand. I'm no genious, but I do interpret technical text for a living, yanno?
(d) Having removed the distraction of the mis-understood science I didn't spend the rest of the book waiting for explanations that never came, but could sit back and enjoy the action, which I already knew was done well. Running, screaming, shooting, blood splatter, all done nicely. Well, not "nicely" per se. Messily, fast, and heart-thumpingly.
(e) Still had a little trouble visualising the monsters, but was not quite so overwhelmingly distracted by the cow markings (and the genetics of cow coat patterning even amongst full clones).
(f) Still found the government pursuit subplot sadly under-utilised.
Perhaps there's a place for a Swancon panel about second readings/watchings of initially disappointing works? The difference between first and second impressions, and the role of expectations on both first exposure and second exposure? I watched Indiana Jones and The Temple of Doom last night I and I quite thoroughly retained the dislike of the female lead I acquired on first sight.
Perhaps for purposes of guest involvement I should reread the Sean Williams book I didn't enjoy (to my surprise) and see if I can appreciate it more on the second round :-)
Tired now.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-11-15 06:23 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-11-15 09:53 am (UTC)