1. Because everyone else is talking about Laurell K. Hamilton, I will too. The only books of hers I've read are the first two Merry Gentry books, and the only reason I picked up the second was the hot men in the first book were kind of nice and that maybe the author would abandon the set-up stuff she'd begun with and just write porn from that point, though I admit I was muttering, "S**t, I write better porn than this." And then in the second book, the author was still trying to pretend that there had to be a plot, and that the protagonist's existence as The Least Credible Private Detective Ever had to figure in. Whaa? So I was left griping that this author just didn't know how to write her erotica, darnit.
Which I understand is at odds with how many (most?) of her readers perceive her books--they see them, I guess?, as sexy action/adventure/mystery that has gone way off into the porn direction, to their dismay. I dunno, possibly because it's not good porn either? In any case, she's lost me, trying to make me believe the private detective stuff, and I'm not inclined to move into any of her other series as a result either. There's that Romany saying, "With one set of buttocks, you cannot ride two horses," and I think that applies both to Merry Gentry and Laurell K. Hamilton. Pick a genre, woman.
2. Had my faith in film renewed again this weekend. I read Perfume by Patrick Suskind years 'n' years ago, loved it. Went apoplectic with joy/terror when I heard it was going to be a film at last. Saw it this weekend. LOVED. IT. Perfect adaptation, just perfect. From my very limited dialogue with those who've seen the film, I think that if you've loved the book you are likely to love the film for its faithfulness to the book, but that if you haven't read the book it's chancy. The film may not sell its concept if you don't know what to expect; put simply, you might not buy it. I think a lot of people will go in expecting a period costume murder mystery; I think it will help if you go in to the film understanding that this is a Supervillain Movie. It just happens to be set in eighteenth-century France.
I like how Roger Ebert's review of it raves about how much he's always loved the book, and then goes on to review both book and film as one, so that you can hardly tell which he's praising. And if you're put off by the just-below-fresh rating to which the Rotten Tomatoes collective averages, this efilmcritic review is supposedly one of the "rotten" ones, but it's actually glowing, calling it lurid and excessive in the most enjoyable of ways. (By the way, that's very much how I've described the films Flash Gordon and Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, and why I've always called them terrific movies, for doing exactly what they intended.)
3. alskjdf;lasdjfalsjdf lfaslfsldfal;sjf YOU GUYS. I haven't closed that thread window since the post was pointed out to me. Just keep...reading and sniffling and looking around to see who the hell you could be talking about. Oh, you guys. &hearts &hearts &hearts &hearts &hearts