Maria K.

sitting pretty, a teaser.

2009-07-06T19:48:00.003+02:00

i know, i know.
november is still a long time away.
but still.

make sure you keep the date free.
it's gonna be awesome.

----------------
Now playing: Fever Ray - Dry And Dusty
via FoxyTunes

skinny types need not apply.

2009-07-05T04:48:00.002+02:00

i was wondering about a subject for my next blog post, so i asked myself: 'what have you done recently that might be of interest to your (probably few) readers?'.
two days ago, i finished michel faber's under the skin*.

let's do a book review.

when i ordered it at my favourite bookseller's (they didn't have it in stock), the nice lady helping me said: 'o, that book! it's very special, completely different from the crimson petal, too'. when i looked at her, questioning, she said: 'i'm sorry, but i shouldn't tell anything about it, it would ruin the experience for you'.

she was right.
so i can assure you, i will do the same thing for you, dear reader, i will not include any spoilers in this post. but i'll tell enough to arouse your interest, at least.

first off: if you have read the crimson petal and the white, - faber's masterpiece and breakthrough novel, set in victorian london - ignore it completely. this is very different.
the only match i've found is his use of language: many different dialects, and different characters have different ways of speaking, and not just in those aforementioned dialects. (i've got a bit of trouble making this clear, people who have actually read crimson petal will know what i mean.)

the story is all about isserley, a young woman spending her days on the road, on the lookout for hitchers. not just any kind of hitchers, they must be well-built males. it takes a while before you discover why, but when you do, it's the one plot twist after the other, keeping you on the edge of your seat, wanting to know more.
and yes, that's all i can tell.
(this must be the worst review ever)

people who are afraid of reading this one, because they loved the crimson petal so much (it just keeps coming up, doesn't it?), to them i have to say this:
- you are wrong to be afraid. read it.
- fear not! there is móre crimson petal than crimson petal alone! there is

the apple.

just as the cover suggests, this is a collection of faber's short stories around the players you met in the book of which i shall use the title no more, because i'm tired of using the italic button.

if you ever wanted to know what happened to clara, bodley, sugar, sophie and others, before or after the big story, read this. it's amazing, and you can't imagine how happy i was to finally find out what happened with sophie afterwards.
(which is actually rather silly, don't you think? why does that author have more authority on the adventures of a fictitious person than your own bloody imagination?)

needless to say, i will surely be purchasing more of faber's books, and her certainly moved himself up on my list of favourite authors.

ps: please feel free to comment, both on the content, and on my writing. it would be much appreciated.
pps: if you'd like to read another blog that is both interesting and well-written, i advise you to read that of multi-artist voltaire: click here.

* i discovered that if you search on this with google images, you get quite a bunch of images depicting that kind of bodymodifications that are placed under the skin.
----------------
Now playing: Blacklist - When Worlds Collide
via FoxyTunes

doubt thou the sun doth move?

2009-07-03T02:44:00.005+02:00

gah, i love shakespearian english.
(did you know that this kind of english was already considered archaic in shakespeare's own time?* it makes one wonder why these so-called neo-victorians are so damn fond of using it.)

gah², it's been ages since i posted anything on here. i don't think i've disappointed anyone on this, but still: gah!

on to the subject then: the sun (by some lovingly (or not) nicknamed 'the daystar' (which always reminds me of 'the daywalker')).

the sun, as we all (should) know by now is a huge ball of gas, turning hydrogen into helium by means of nuclear fusion (if i recall correctly). the result of this is radiation, which makes our planet in to a cosy place to live.
except during bloody summers like these.
i mean, what the fuck is going on? i don't mind a bit of fine weather, not at all, but this is seriously going over the top. i'm totally sweating away, can't sleep, never feel like eating, and whenever i have to be outside, i'm frightened i'll get a sunburn, or worse, heatstruck. that happened to me for the first time two years ago, during a holiday in hungary, and it impressed me so much, i'm still afraid of it. i was expecting it to happen someday, it runs in the family, but i never thought it would be that bad. i mean, my migraine attacks feel like nothing to worry about, compared to it.
it's the most massive headache imaginable, combined with terrible nausean, shaking, and a strong willingness to die. just die, so it can all be over.

so the first person coming up to me to say that i'm just nagging and say i should just enjoy the fine weather will lose his or her testicles, i swear.

this all resulted in me rather disliking summer, and having the need to be locked up all the time.
but!

BUT!

then this came by, and it's gonna make the summer really really cool anyway:

(hah! i just turned my blog in to a infomercial! how american's that!?)

so you should all just come and help me have a good summertime for once!

then, on to the second subject of my blog: the book i just finished reading today, namely richard dawkins' 'the god delusion'.

i'll just say it here, otherwise i'll most likely do it a zillion times i see you in real life: this book is fucking awesome and i feel like obliging you to read it. no really. you should.

not only is it an easy accessible book for all types of readers, it is also very funny.
and of course, most important of all, he makes some damn good points.

for those who haven't heard of the book yet, a short introduction:
dawkins has written many books, mostly on the subject of evolution theory. it would seem only natural that this results in him having a dislike of religion and it's creationism theories.
creationists, in turn, don't really like dawkins.
after this book came out, i think they really don't like him.

not only does he explain why you shouldn't be religious, and why god's existence is really very improbable, he also talks about the evil thing religion really is, and why we really shouldn't be so respectful towards it.

and he does it while making you laugh out loud.
i tell you, the man is a genius.
so just read the book
or i'll keep nagging at you.
or worse: you'll go to hell.**

and with that, i'll leave you.
hopefully, a new entry will appear sooner than this one did.

*if you'd like to know more about shakespeare without having to read one of those massive biographies, i recommend bill bryson's 'shakespeare: the world as a stage'. even if you don't give a fuck about shakespeare, it's well worth the read, it's very funny ánd informative about the elizabethan age.

**that wasn't supposed to make sense.

----------------
Now playing: Amanda Palmer - Have To Drive
via FoxyTunes

musicalitis

2009-05-12T19:47:00.002+02:00

musicalitis: it's a rare affliction that makes the subject want to see/hear musicals a lot.

i suffer from it.

well, not really suffer, i actually quite enjoy it.

so i present, here and know, for you, a list of my favourite (stage-to-screen) musicals!

1. chicago

the story:
roxy (an amazing renee zellweger), a young woman in an unhappy marriage, dreams of a carreer on stage. when her lover confesses he can't get her that, like he promessed, she kills him, and ends up in jail.
there she meets velma (catherine zeta-jones), her heroine-on-stage, who killed her sister and husband. she also meets the warden, 'mama' morton (queen latifah) and lawyer billy flinn (richard gere).
they all drag her along in a world of jazz, lies and a chance to finally get on that stage.

what i like about it:
it's set in 1930's chicago. this means lots of jazz, vintage cars and great outfits.
there's a good mix between seriousness and fun, drama and lightheartedness.
the story has a good pace, and the songs don't interrupt or slow down the film.
it's a visual orgasm.

what i don't like about it:
nothing. there's nothing i dislike about this film.

2. cabaret

the story:
brian, an english linguist, moves to berlin, where he meets sally, an american singer who works at the kit kat klub. they fall in love, but encounter some troubles when they meet count maximilian, with whom they both fall in love.
all the while, the rise of the nazis is enavitible.

what i like about it:
it's set in 1930's berlin. this means lots of jazz, vintage cars and outfits.
there's a good mix between seriousness and fun, drama and lightheartedness.
the story has a good pace, and the songs don't interrupt or slow down the film.
it's a visual orgasm.
(do you guys see a pattern here?)

what i don't like about it:
sometimes it seems a bit dated, but that's really all that can be said.

that's it for now. more to come another time.
if you haven't seen these films yet, i advise you to do it urgently.
(even if you don't generally like musicals, they're just really really good films).

if you have any suggestions i should see, please leave a comment.

the point of it all

2009-05-12T06:48:00.003+02:00

hi. it's me again.

just now, i was reading my friend sado's blog. (you'll find it here).
in it, she mentioned something about the the point she was getting to, and that, just that, made me think.

i reread my own posts, and realised i hadn't made a point. not at all.
i mean, i just rambled on about my passion for language, going from this to that, without even once considering what the hell is was rambling about, what kind of message i was forwarding to my (very few, probably) readers.

at first, i felt very stupid at that.
but then i did some more thinking (what a productive morning this has been!).
and while thinking, i reminded myself of a column i read once, written by an actress, ianka fleerackers.
in it, she told her readers she had gotten a letter by a reader who asked her why she could never get herself to make a point in her columns.
as an answer, she wrote in her column, in a very nice and roundabout way, something like this: fuck off. i don't need to make a point if i don't want to.

she was right.
i mean, why should i make a point? i just wanna amuse myself (and possibly some readers) with some texts, that are, hopefully, not too badly written.

with this being said, i leave you, no point made at all.

(in case you were wondering: yes, the title is an amanda palmer reference. i like showing of my love for music all the time.)

----------------
Now playing: Pink Turns Blue - True Love (Strobelight Mix)
via FoxyTunes

language (1)

2009-05-10T06:52:00.003+02:00

ever since i was a kid, i've been interested in language, especially the written kind.
i mean, it was (is!) like magic: by using a simple system of 26 characters, you can write (or type, which is probably more common nowadays) down any given word, which, in turn, can be used to create sentences, and when you can do that, you can convey any message, to any person (who can decipher* the set of characters) without needing to be there in person.

and the really amazing thing is: there's more than one system. there are even hundreds of systems, all used to preserve and distribute thoughts, ideas, stories,...
and that intruiged me even more: when you're a kid, you learn how to write according to the rules of the system commonly used in the area where you live, and you're told to abide the rules at all time.
but why?
ok, if everyone writes the same way, it's easy for everyone to decipher* one another's texts. but do we really have to follow the rules so strictly? can't we adapt the system to our own use, and still make ourselves clear?
(of course we can: i haven't been using any capitals for a while now, and yet everyone can read my text)
so why are there so many people (me being one of them!) who nag at other people for not using the system according to the rules?
(i've got no clue, really)

and another thing: why are we using this particular system? this one, based on the roman characters? why don't we write in greek, cyrillic, runes (i taught those myself when i was a kid, that was real fun), hieroglyphs or anything else for that matter?

(rosetta stone, from top to bottom: egyptian, demotic, greek)

it can't be because one was superior to the other: the rosetta stone contains three systems, all describing the same, yet only one of those systems survived to this day.
(if anyona has got an opinion on this, feel free to share it in a comment)

* when i use the verb to decipher it always sounds like something william legrand would be eager to do, but's actually what we do when we read, we're just used to it, and used to doing it so fast, it's hard to imagine it being deciphering.
----------------
Now playing: Siouxsie & The Banshees - Love In A Void [John Peel Session 1]
via FoxyTunes

first post.

2009-05-10T06:12:00.000+02:00

this is the very first post of my very first blog.
it won't be interesting, believe me.

i never blogged before. i don't really know why i'm doing it right now.
most likely, it's because some of my friends started doing it, and i felt like hopping on that train.
could be fun, assuming there'll be people reading it. i don't know.
i don't even know how long i'll keep up writing on a regular basis.

we'll just have to see, right?

on the subject of the contents of the blog:
everything i feel like ranting about.
literature, music and films, mostly.
nice things i find on the net.

you get the picture.

in an afterthought, i considered that a blog like this might be a perfect opportunity for improvement of my writing skills. now that could be fun.
----------------
Now playing: Dead Can Dance - Advent
via FoxyTunes