I don't really read Honzo's theology blog, Mass Theology, but I just might start after reading this humorous comment from a guy who is threatening to sue Honzo and Dave:

David,

Please be aware that if your accusations concerning my personal character are disseminated to the public as a result of your post, that I will sue you in a court of law for libel. Therefore, it is in your interest to have such statements removed. I have no more time to discuss this, David is a schismatic and vicious. David- please be aware that I will file suit if your comments concerning my character show up on any search

He then goes on:

Important: I immediately request that this website remove David's defamatory remarks concerning my character. Debates in public forums like this should never resort to character assassination attempts. David is being extremely irresponsible. Failure to remove the character assassination will be grounds for suit if this false information concerning my character is publicly spread.

I think he's reacting to this comment from Dave:

Brad...didn't you know? Oppose Tyranny is smarter than all of us. He long ago made that clear we he "proved" that we do not know the Bible.

The "duh" is right in line with his pompous arrogance and condescension. Don't you remember that Bible verse: "Thou shall be pompous, arrogant, and condescending when discussing theology."

But I'm not to sure since there is a huge amount of comments. This whole thing is why I pretty much refuse to argue about things like this. So hey, maybe since I'm reprinting this, I'm going to get sued too. But I think there is some new law saying I can't since I'm just reprinting it. So there you have it, your WTF of the Day.

Another interesting quote from the book I'm reading:

One major question needing to be examined is the general attitude of nature. A century ago there was a consensus about this: nature was ‘red in tooth and claw’, evolution was a record of open warfare among competing species, the fittest were the strongest aggressors and so forth. Now it begins to look different. The tiniest and most fragile of organisms dominate the life of the earth: the chloroplasts inside the cells of plants, which turn solar energy into food and supply the oxygen for breathing, appear to be the descendants of ancient blue-green algae, living now as permanent lodgers within the cells of ‘higher’ forms; the mitochondria of all nucleated cells, which serve as engines for all the functions of life, are the progeny of bacteria which took to living as cells-inside-cells long ago. The urge to form partnerships, to link up in collaborative arrangements, is perhaps the oldest, strongest and most fundamental force in nature. There are no solitary, free- living creatures; every form of life is dependent on other forms. The great successes in evolution, the mutants who have, so to speak, made it, have done so by fitting in with, and sustaining, the rest of life. Up to now we might be counted among the brilliant successes, but flashy and perhaps unstable. We should go warily into the future, looking for ways to be more useful, listening more carefully for signals, watching our step and having an eye out for partners.
-- Lewis Thomas, The Key Reporter (Autumn 1980)

Well, I saw that this was going to be on TV not long after I saw Pan's Labyrinth, and since I'd heard that PL was a companion-piece to this movie, I thought it might be the right time to see it. Yes, the movies do have a lot of similarities. In both, a child is brought to a place s/he doesn't want to be, is deserted by parents, and is intrigued by a supernatural world that can harm him/her, and the child's real world situation is potentially much more dangerous than the supernatural--especially in the setting of the end of the Spanish Civil War. Both films have their strengths and flaws, so to call one better than the other is a bit difficult for me.

This one runs a little more along the lines of a horror film because it's got a scary dead child in it. That's right, our protagonist Carlos (Fernando Tielve) is living in an orphanage, sleeping in the bed of a child named Santi who went missing a while back, and Santi seems to want him for something. Santi is pretty freaky, although the scary-looking child thing is getting old for me, but I'll give this movie the benefit of the doubt because it came out a few years before this became a very popular trend (the Ring, the Messengers, the Grudge, etc.).

While I like the angle The Devil's Backbone takes, I almost feel like it's a bit too jumbled for its own good. There are a lot of ideas running around, and though most of them tie together by the film's end, a few of the strands feel like they could have been cut off. Multiple relationships between the staffers of the orphanage feel superfluous, and some of the quirks of the headmistress and professor Cesares distract from the already over-the-top plot. We've got a dead boy who whispers "Many of you will die", bullies, the evil caretaker (and girlfriends), gold stealers, a non-exploding bomb sitting in the courtyard, a legless woman (and boyfriends), a dark well, and kerosene. With all that going on, it, in some of my favorite words from Nelson on the Simpsons, "The whole thing smacks of effort."

That being said, I actually did like the movie. It's effectively scary, it's got a good point-of-view with the young boy protagonist, and the bomb in the courtyard is actually one of my favorite parts. The ending justified some of the qualms I had with the movie, and it's an interesting look at what fueled del Toro's imagination to create Pan's Labyrinth. I think PL is more effective emotionally and slightly more cohesive and creative, but feel like The Devil's Backbone stands up well enough on its own with the story of Santi. Both movies have weaknesses, but I like both for their strengths.

This entry represents 20 posts in the last year.

Don't wear your eyes out!

This is a quick hello to Beth Shive. As well to anyone else who checks this blog regularly and, therefore, is regularly disappointed in me.

Hello.

Here's my fortune from the other night when Stephanie and I ate at P.F. Chang's (Kung Pao Scallops, if you must know--the leftovers of which I am enjoying inbetween sentences):

"You will become an accomplished writer."

Well, this comes about two weeks after a new book idea. Not a word of it down yet. Is that what the Chinese mean by 'accomplished'?

Or is it what they mean by 'writer'?