Problems with "Jane Eyre"

"Jane Eyre" was of course amazing. I think a lot of you feel that way. And by all means ... you should. 'Cause it is.

It's wondrous and beautiful and creepy.

But I felt like it was missing something, or like there was something flat-out WRONG with it. And here are my thoughts:


1. Jane's character, while elaborately drawn and solidly fleshed out, was sometimes inconsistent. For example,

2. Why did she want to go to India when she had settled herself into the splendor of her newfound status as a sister? What motivated Jane to consider travelling under the hot sun alongside a person whose intentions appealed to her own values but whose personality, while to a considerable degree intriguing and impressive to her, clashed so morbidly with her own?

3. Why did she love Rochester? What about his furious fervor and wild impatience kept her passion for him fully alive?

My qualms. The end.

Lihua

Review for "Tomorrow, When the War Began" by John Marsden

Ellie and a group of friends come back from a refreshing trip deep in the crevices of the most secluded and rural part of their Australian state - to find that their everyday life has been torn apart by invading troops.

"Tomorrow, When the War Began" is a riveting book that would have been marginally more engrossing had the character development been offered more breathing room. There were, after all, eight kids in the centralized party. The first-person narration is solid and observant and keeps the reader absorbed, so it was well worth the read.

Why Comedy is Funny and Family Guy Won't Freak People Out (Plus What Jane Austen Movie to Avoid)

There is no such thing as a good Jane Austen movie that uses saxophones and electric guitars as part of its score.

http://www.amazon.com/Northanger-Abbey-1986-Katharine-Schlesinger/dp/B0007OY2P8/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1281035506&sr=8-4

I couldn't get through it.

Last night on CNN's "Larry King Live" was an interview with Seth MacFarlane. Two questions on my end: one, why do viewers have to delve into the aspects of comedy like it's actually threatening?; and two, why, in response to these questions, did I only hear the word "satire" once?

"Family Guy" is stuff we think, stuff that occurs to us and WE WON'T SAY IT. Because it's buried underneath the veneer of polite humanity. But it's there, and everything's okay when he brings it out. There is no shying away from anything, so that when something changes (as in the love-it-or-hate-it episode "Brian and Stewie"), it can work. And it's interesting. Also, when something humongous happens, nobody is nervous.

I remember watching "The Simpsons" and feel uneasy when something out of the ordinary (for the Simpson family) occurred on the show: i.e., a bunch of holes in a security guard at the bank. "Whoa!" my mother said. "I don't wanna watch that! Why would I want to see that?" Because it's tame and subtle most of the time, pushing the boundaries a little didn't always work for a show like "The Simpsons". But with something uncut and wild, you can still get your sense of intellectually-driven humor when things branch off or out.

How did I go from complaining about the BBC Jane Austen movie to ranting about comedy? CRAP, I'm one of those viewers who over-analyzes.

No. No, wait, I don't have to be. I LIKE it. It's funny.

The end.

Lihua

Books

Isn't this wonderful? I've got a copy of "Jane Eyre" from the library and, from the DVD kiosk, a film version of "Northanger Abbey". And at home I've got "Gulliver's Travels". If you haven't read it please read it. Thanks. So um. You know, I find myself thinking about what a crap deal it is that we have to die before we can read everything great.

Lihua