Jan. 5th, 2014

shadowkat: (warrior emma)
This is the second question/assignment of The January Talking Meme. I've gotten seven questions in all. So the next one won't be until the 10th, that is unless someone poses another question in between now and then.

For January 5th - [livejournal.com profile] ann1962 asked- What is the hardest thing you've ever had to write, that went against your more spontaneous style?

Hee, besides answering this question? Just joshing. I'm tempted to say the stuff I have to write for a living - but then I'd have to find a way to explain it, without giving away too much about my workplace (a big no-no on a public blog), besides what I have to write for a living - is not that hard. I've had much harder writing assignments, such as that collaborative fanfic that I attempted to write back in the summer of 2002. Granted 75% of the time - was spent smoothing the rumpled feathers of various other writers involved (if you've ever done this - you know what I'm talking about), the other half was attempting to write the next chapter of a story using someone else's ideas, concept, and plot - which I did not necessarily agree with or thought is really stupid. But I can't exactly say that over email to someone I don't know that well, can I? I guess I could...Suffice to say, that wasn't the hardest thing I've had to write, believe it or not. Discovered I was actually better at collaborative writing than I thought, just didn't find it all that enjoyable - way too much drama.

No, the hardest thing I've ever had to write that went against my spontaneous style was oddly enough a poem. I state oddly, because poems are meant to be intuitive, or spontaneous.
And in most cases they are - at least for me. I can write prose poetry rather well. But this wasn't just any old poem, no it was the bane of the English Lit Major's existence...the deadly, insanely difficult...English SONNET!!! And of course, being a SONNET, it must be in iambic pentameter, because otherwise it isn't an English SONNET!

This sort of goes against my general vibe. Because sonnets have a precise rhythmic structure. With not only a specific rhyme scheme, but a specific rhythmic count.


A Shakespearean, or English, sonnet consists of fourteen lines written in iambic pentameter, a pattern in which an unstressed syllable is followed by a stressed syllable five times. The rhyme scheme in a Shakespearean sonnet is a-b-a-b, c-d-c-d, e-f-e-f, g-g; the last two lines are a rhyming couplet.


It's a bit like writing a musical composition or playing an instrument. Or knitting a sweater. You have to count. A lot. Not only do you have to count - you have to keep track of your count. And you have to count in a specific rhythmic pattern.

Keep in mind, I was a English Lit Major, not a math major or a music major or a science major, but an English "LITERATURE" Major, with a minor in cultural anthropology (basically myths, folk narratives, and epics). I was avoiding math. [Or attempting to. God or The universe, who is a bit of comedian, clearly had other plans - because I do a lot of math now for a living. But that's another story. I'm trying to stay on topic here.] There was also the slight issue ...that I don't count well. Never have. Apparently it's genetic and called dyscalculia (in case you are curious). My aunt has it, and I have a form of it, as does my mother. However my mother and I have managed to compensate for it. Obviously, because I do financial analysis at work all the time. But financial analysis isn't the same as writing a sonnet. For one thing - you can use excel and a calculator. For another...there is no counting or crazy rhyme scheme to keep track of.

But my creative writing poetry course required that I write a sonnet. Or at least make an attempt. (I tried to get out of it - or substitute something else.) And...I'm sorry to say, I don't think I pulled it off. Oh I thought I wrote a sonnet. Or at least I hoped that I had, I honestly couldn't tell - which is saying something in of itself. I mean if you can't tell if you wrote one or not - you clearly can't write one. At any rate, from my perspective it was a sonnet. But my professor disagreed, and graded it a B + for effort.

In case you're wildly curious below is my ill-fated attempt to write a sonnet, demonstrating in of itself how this was indeed the hardest writing exercise that I ever tackled.

The English Major

Dreams like half finished sentences
Cloud my mind and spiritus
With paragraphs of weariness
As I start to lust for past tenses
Verbs conquer nouns and adjectives
Grammar fails when you touch me
With arms like parenthesis;
And I wonder how active
They must be to cause an interim -
Blocking me, yet, not making sense
As you part, not end, our sentence
Leaving me with a semicolon;
Hanging in space, dear letter head
What happened to the period?


I was told that it was a very clever poem, but unfortunately, not a sonnet. The exercise did, however, give me a whole new appreciation for Shakespeare. The dude was not only prolific, he was prolific in iambic pentameter. Must have been a great musician or at the very least fiendishly good at knitting.
shadowkat: (warrior emma)
First off, a caveat, I have not read the book by David Mitchell upon which this movie was adapted. So can't really compare the two. I do own the book, was a Xmas gift from my brother once upon a time, but have not gotten around to reading it yet. If the book is anything at all like the movie - I'm in no rush.

Cloud Atlas was directed by the Wachowski brothers (the guys behind The Matrix), and starred Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Jim Sturgess, Jim Broadbent, Dona Yabow, and a truly unrecognizable Hugh Grant. They each played six different roles. Must have been a blast for the actors.

The film is rather hard to follow. You are in effect watching six separate films at the same
time. Jumping from one to the next with little transition or warning. And the only through lines are: the same actors in each story, each story is violent or concluded with varying degrees of violence, one of the characters has a comet tattoo (one tattoo that appears in different places on their anatomy), and in each story - someone keeps repeating the theme of the entire film:

we are all connected to each other, we do not really belong to ourselves but to those others upon whom our actions, crimes and kindnesses affect, and what we've done resonates well into our pasts, presents and the time yet to come.

This is repeated various times through the film, by various characters.

And just in case the audience hasn't gotten that point - the three stories that take place in the future or more recent times reference the three stories that took place in the distant past. They underline certain key events and/or have specific characters state - oh, I just had the weirdest sense of deja-vue, referencing that specific event, or they'll shoot of a line or phrase, which becomes a major reality in another story (example: in the 1960s, Cavendish exclaims that Soylent Green is people - as a joke, clearly referencing a movie at the time, while in the distant future, a character discovers that it is more or less true.)

Subtle - this film is not, but then it is by the Wachowiski brothers, who aren't exactly known for deftness or subtlety in their film-making.

Oh, and I almost forgot - the one through line that I liked - the composition of a musical work entitled "The Cloud Atlas", which pops up in three of the six stories, and is described as a sextet - an obvious allusion to the narrative structure of the film (six stories juxtaposed neatly as stanzas within the composition of a 3 hour film) - all informing or building upon each other. That's the intent behind the narrative structure at any rate. Which is sort of cool in theory, but doesn't quite work in practice. I kept getting lost or my attention wandered. The jumping around is bit jarring. I think it may have worked better if they'd gone for a more linear narrative. On the other hand - the plot threads are all rather simplistic. Even when my attention wandered, I was able to get the gist of what was happening, although not always how it connected to the other stories.

While there are compelling bits here and there, segments that I sort of wish were shown as separate little movies in their own right, the film falls into the same trap as Christopher Nolan's INCEPTION, in that it feels the need to have the all the stories center on violent events, or action - as if everyone's life is an action movie. It's not. Or we all have violent events in our lives. We don't. I think this film much like Inception, would have worked better if it intermingled quieter and happier stories within the violent/action oriented ones.

That said, it admittedly has a nifty message. And I agree with the overall theme, even if it is a wee bit on the preachy side of the fence. Also there are three films within the film (it's a sextet, with six films bracketed within the whole) that stand out. The two that stand out are:
mild plot spoilers )
The others felt a bit...cliche in places or retreads of other stories I've seen. But overall entertaining, just hard to follow due to the narrative structure.

I think the problem with Cloud Atlas is similar to the problem I had with Time of the Doctor, which is the directors are trying to do too much in a limited time frame, and they are putting theme over story and plot. The whole story is based on what amounts to a narrative gimmick utilized to make a thematic point, and that takes precedence over simply telling the stories. While the gimmick is admittedly clever and I rather like the thematic point -both lose meaning and substance, when the stories fall flat as a result.

Overall? I agree with the critics...nice idea, but flimsy execution. I'm guessing the book may have worked better? It's actually easier to do this in a novel than a movie - less jarring and you have more time to pull it off.
Page generated May. 16th, 2025 04:39 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios
OSZAR »