Tuesday, 28 June 2011

Why waste time?

Caution: Confusing to headhunters.
Michael Deacon at the Telegraph looks at the advantages of ignorance and snobbery.  I know it works for me.

He also has this to say about poets:
Having never earned a royalty cheque for their own work greater than 37p, most poets don’t know what to do with money, and greet it with the mixture of terror, consternation and hysteria you might expect from a primitive Papuan tribe confronted for the first time by a television set.
Too true.

1 comment:

eon said...

I avoid a lot of movies simply because they do not interest me. I am mainly an SF fan, with some interest in fantasy (think "Lord of the Rings", not "Harry Potter"), and a liking for film noir. (Think "The Big Sleep"- the greatest FN ever made, in either the 1945 or 1946 version.)

Plus the occasional Western; think "El Dorado", "For a Few Dollars More", or "The Outlaw Josey Wales", as opposed to "Shane" or "Stagecoach". The closer a film comes to the "real West", the better, I always say. (This probably explains why most of my favorites starred and/or were directed by Clint Eastwood.) As such, many movies simply are not on my radarscope.

And some are just plain silly on the face of it. I didn't bother to see the "Miami Vice" movie because trying to update that series, which was heavily based on the South Florida culture of the 1980s, to the present- and as a comedy, no less- is ludicrous by its very nature.(Almost as ridiculous as "CSI:Miami", in fact.)

I avoided the "Dukes of Hazzard" movie because I hated the original TV series. (Having worked in law enforcement in Appalachia, I knew the series was a Charlie Fox from the start.)

As for the "Green Lantern" movie, I will probably watch it when it comes out on DVD. Ditto "Thor". My opinion being that the movie makers cannot possibly screw up those two characters more thoroughly than DC and Marvel, respectively, already have.