Well, you see, my wife seldom reads my blogs---for whatever reason, but it behoved her---for whatever reason, to read a few the other day. Very gingerly, she brought up a couple of things that...ah....concerned her. Mostly, the soft critique centered around the fact that she thinks I just might come off as a sour crank. Yet I saw no problem with that, really, but she pressed on further relating other people's views and beliefs which she believes should be honoured. uh ha, hmmm. I sensed a reproach, yet her demeanor belied no hint of a scold. I thought much about it, and decided to revisit certain topics and authors I smashed along the way to at least clarify.
Nostradamus and 2012: It really is bunk though, but I can give a benefit of the doubt if any one can interpret his quatrains properly without over-reaching and exaggerating certain terms. The Book of Revelations in the Bible is the same thing. But people believe such things and who am I to say otherwise.
In defence of myself, I'm a skeptic, a confirmed skeptic. I always think and truly believe that things are not what they seem, that any "known fact" is never certain, that every leading consuming topic is never as dire as they put it out to be, that you can pretty well cut in half these topics to get close to the truth, that there usually is an ulterior motive to get people to think along certain lines, and so on. It just human. And imagination.
My wife said I should explain that......I did.
Malcolm Gladwell: My wife said I gave this popular author of BLINK and other such cra... too hard a time, and that maybe he was actually on to a lot of important things. Well, he's not, really. I saw him being interviewed the other night on the telly. I certainly think that his easy approach to decisions, success, etc., reflects the Western way of thinking---that in order to get things, there must be a trick, or easy way. Life doesn't work that way, I don't think. There's too many variables along the way to say for sure that this is the only way to go about it, or that this is what happens all the time. It's a wild position. I always wonder what people educated in sociology or anthropology, and know and study these things, think about his simplistic view of events. I also wonder at his popularity.
I was also going to write a blog on Charlize Theron, but my wife said that it probably wasn't appropriate and on topic. I was going to say that I am much enamoured with this young female actor. Not only is she such an excellent actor in anything I've seen her in, she is absolutely a beautiful woman. Her radiant face is flawless, yet in her roles in movies she plays this down in order to reach the character she portrays. There are many female actors who would not take such roles because it would make them look ugly, yet Ms. Theron's objective is always the character she's portraying. She's a true actor. And beautiful with gorgeous eyes! My wife is right, so I won't write anything about Charlize Theron. Oh, I have to say that the problem with Charlize Theron is that her roles in movies lately are becoming redundant, but that's mostly because there's no good screen plays written for women. This has always been a problem for female actors. And it seems a blatant problem today with the movies out now. Anyway, I wasn't suppose to write all this.
So that's it, I think. Historical fiction next.