Ok, so I've always liked board games. Your run-of-the-mill Monopoly, Boggle, Othello were standards in my house, especially in the summer. Then there were others like Black Box, Dark Tower, the Lord of the Rings board game, the Star Wars board game. But Risk was always up there on my list. I mean, who can resist the chance to acheive complete global domination? And plus you had those cool roman-numeral plastic pieces. The problem was finding enough people who were willing to commit to a marathon session, especially after the age of 12. (Although I do remember a Purple Crayon tour [Seattle?] where we seemed to do nothing put play Risk and Monopoly, and invented a sort of hybrid where you played both simultaneously, and could use your Monopoly money to buy armies. You couldn't, however, billet your soldiers in the hotels.)
When Hasbro came out with its PC version of Risk, I was tempted -- but after all, what's the fun of beating a computer at global domination? They're going to take over anyway. Then they advertised that you could play online, which sounded cooler, but I was still too cheap to buy it. So imagine my pleasure on finding Dominate, an online Risk game programmed in Java by a very nice Dutch guy named Emiel.
At any particular time, it seems, there are at least 50 guys in Holland just waiting to take over the world. (Does this say something about the role of Holland in the European wars of the last century?) Of course, this makes for some interesting negotiations since I now know 2 words in Dutch (hoi = hi, spelen=press the start button already, or something like that. See, surfing the Internet *is* educational.) But by and large it's a faithful adapation -- same countries, continents, etc. The cards aren't as important as in the regular version (they don't go up in value as the game progresses, and you don't get the cards of a player you've killed), which is fine by me. There's also an option to either place armies at the beginning of each turn (the "American"version) or to have a choice to place armies *or* attack (the "European" version), which I find to be a more elegant and strategic game (meaning, I win more often that way.)
As we approach the post-Napster age, it's a pleasure to find such blatant examples of copyright violation. (I guess you really *can* do anything in Amsterdam.) So head over to www.bruijntjes.net and enjoy it before the cops shut it down.
| Copyright |
Take the following. "The Approach to Al-Mutasim": instead of writing a novel, Borges writes a review of the nonexistent book. "The Blair Witch Project": a horror movie in the guise of an is-it-real-or-not documentary. "Pale Fire": the life of the editor takes over the work, a less-than-sane counterpoint in the footnotes. "The Garden of Forking Paths": Borges describes a book that is also a Labryinth. Take these, throw in every haunted-house story you've read, add some weird shit, put in a blender, bake at 350. Out comes The House of Leaves by Mark Z. Danielewski, as rich and strange as anything I've read for some time. (Another first novel -- I'm not doing a theme, honest.)
Continue reading "House of Leaves" » | Nabokov | Scary | Mazes | The Curious Bookshelf |
I must admit that I have sometimes wondered, while waiting to reach my floor, about the elevator inspectors, that list of signatures and dates that is supposed to assure us that we won't plunge to our deaths. Colson Whitehead's first novel, The Intuitionist, is about these folks, in a sort of alternate City where elevators are indeed big business, with lobbyists and billboards and everything. The inspector in question is Lila Mae Watson, the city's first female, and second black, inspector. At the beginning she's framed for an elevator accident -- not only because she's a minority, but also because she's an Intuitionist. The department, and the industry, is split by a struggle between the Empricisits, who examine elevators, and the Intuitionists, who, well, intuit what's wrong. Funny thing is, the Intuitionists have a higher accuracy rate.
If this sounds like a heavy handed allegory, it's not. Whitehead plays with the intersections of race, gender, and rationalism, and this is definitely a book that's about more than it's about. But The Intuitionist reads like a noir novel, if Sam Spade were given to mystical ruminations on elevators. It's both thoughtful and a good read: what more do you want from a first novel?
| The Curious Bookshelf |
Recently, a person I thought of as a friend recommended that I read this book by Leo Tolstoy. Strange as it may seem for someone who attended a hoity-toity institute of higher learning for a Bachelor's Degree in English, I had not read it. I do not like long books. I like Annie Ernaux, who seems to be able to say everything she needs to in 150 pages or fewer. I also like the short stories of Alice Munro and Flannery O'Connor because, well, they're short. I had read The Death of Ivan Ilyich, because even though it was not as short as the works of Ms. Munro (which can themselves be formidably long), it was not 923 pages. Anna Karenina is 923 pages.
Continue reading "Why Anna Karenina is too long" » | Guest: Alex J |
OK, I must preface this by saying that I've spent a lot of time in New England. New Hampshire, even, and Vermont. And as a satire / comedy (not always the same thing) I have to say that I enjoyed David Mamet's movie State and Main thoroughly and on a level that he was probably trying to accomplish.
Those people not familiar with some of the nuances and stereotypes of New England Yankees will probably find this movie somewhat funny and eccentric, but not a laugh riot.
What's good:
-- The cast. Philip Seymour Hoffman, Rebecca Pidgeon and David Paymer are the highlights.
-- The script. Enhances the cast. A little stylized (what are you going to do, it's Mamet) but beautiful in the way it sets up characters that are multi-dimensional with a minimum of dialogue. The actors take it from there. Also, I loved the way that Mamet doesn't feel the need to explain or justify every eccentricity he puts on screen.
-- The satire. Not the same as comedy per se, but occasionally very funny. Takes on both moviemaking and New England; those that are familiar with either one will love it.
What's not good:
-- The humor can be pretty inside. Not everyone thinks beyond-stereotype parodies of old stationmasters is the stuff of comedy.
But overall: see the film! It's a lovely piece of work.
John Trainer
| David Mamet |