bluewoad

Member
  • Content count

    27
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About bluewoad

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.xreal.org
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Interests
    Faith and arts, fantasy literature (esp the epistemology involved), languages, literature in general, the fine art of painting oneself blue

Previous Fields

  • Occupation
    registrar
  • About my avatar
    A picture from one of my children. 'He looks sad, Brittany. Why is he sad?' 'Coz he's daddy.'
  • Favorite movies
    LA Story Groundhog Day Roxanne
  • Favorite music
    DA, Swirling Eddies, Lost Dogs The Choir Blueman Group Dougie Maclean Fiona Joyce
  • Favorite creative writing
    Connie Willis Kage Baker Jasper Fforde Thomas Hardy Jane Austen
  • Favorite visual art
    Sargent
  1. Start with Anubis Gates. That's his biggest 'hit'. Then I'd recommend Declare (it's a spy thriller about angels and demons). From there, you can start picking away at his other books.
  2. Man, teach me to take the weekend off: good topics come up and everyone has already mentioned many of the good books. I'd also add Steven Erikson's Malazan series. It's up to something like book 6 or 7 in the UK/Canada/Australia market, but only book 2 has come out here in the U.S. so far. However, Seattle-area people (like those who start these such threads) can get the complete series at the U-Bookstore on the Ave. I second Robin Hobb (another Seattle-area author, btw). For good 'out loud' readability, Cecilia Dart-Thornton is really, really good. Of course, I'm now drawing a blank for any further names, even though I'm the books review editor for Deep Magic (shameless and very inelegant plug).
  3. OK, as bad as FF appears to be, it look like it would be a non-starter compared to Legends of the Superheroes.
  4. I'm thinking there's a good chance it'll be Harry himself, to be brought back in book 7. All throughout Rowling has played up heavily the connection between Harry and Voldemort. They have very similar powers and Harry seems to be in some way a reincarnation of Voldemort, only with all the nasty stuff (well, most of it) taken away. So why shouldn't Harry be able to return from the dead just as Voldemort did? In some interviews I've read, Rowling makes allusions to the books having a 'Christian theme' so it may just be this. (BTW, Oliver Wood is the captain of the Gryffindor quidditch team.)
  5. Well, in the Ultimate FF series, Doom is involved in the same accident as the other FF, which is one more plank in my theory that most of the recent Marvel movies fit more into the Ultimate world than the 'classical' Marvel world. I have proof of this, but it won't fit here in this margin.
  6. Short answer: sez yoo. Longer answer: The reason for creating categories is mostly so that we can have a way to discuss art. Heck, even the question 'what is art?' (which I see you have been discussing with MrMando) is a question of categories. Thus, a discussion of categories is important as it makes us look at what we value. As to the phrase 'doesn't mean', I'd have to ask where you're getting your definitions. For the one who can phrase the question is the one who controls the debate. My definition of 'sacred art' would be art that is not directly referential to this world, moment, time, or place and instead focuses on the eternal and transcendent. Thus, secular art, by your definition does mean 'not sacred.' More to be said, but have a meeting here in my office in about, oh, 20 seconds....
  7. I'm about halfway through Mark Noll's latest, Is the Reformation Over? about softening Catholic/Protestant relations. I'm also about to read the third volume of Lian Hearn's Tales of the Otori and dive into Debra Murphy's The Mystery of Things. Other than that, I'm just working my way through my review-book slush pile: so many self-published books, so little quality.
  8. Like the other Matt, I'm not sure if I can, in good conscience, participate in this scientific study since my option isn't listed -- viz., whenever I think of it, but since I'm usually absent-minded and instead mentally composing my next scintillating post to A&F, I may not even get around to brushing my teeth and instead just put my toothbrush back with toothpaste still on it, assuming, of course, that I got as far as putting toothpaste on it. I do feel discriminated against.
  9. There are two ways of reading the 'Christian' in 'Christian art': it could mean (and too often does) the worldview of the artist, or it could mean the worldview being expressed in the art. The latter, however, is hard to determine at times. The case of Serrano that has been brought up is a good example. One distinction I prefer (but realize this is a losing battle) is sacred art vs secular art, with 'secular' meaning 'not sacred' and not meaning 'done by those yucky heathens' (which is its too common meaning among Christians). Bach's 'Jesu, Joy of Man's Desire' is sacred art. But Tolkien's LOTR is secular art. But even this distinction is problematic. I think we should just stick with 'good art' and 'bad art' and then argue the aesthetic that allows us to make those categories. That alone should keep us plenty busy and also bring the idea of Christianity and the arts into the conversation repeatedly.
  10. Y'know, I've always responded to people who object to the phrase 'Christian art' as being pedantic. 'Christian' *is* an adjective, but it's an ambiguous one (as many words are), so you have to look at the context it appears in to know what's being meant. But to say that it's only a noun is to redefine things so that your position can stand.
  11. And I was so sure that when the Jedi started dropping like flies by the troopers who can't hit said flies in the original trilogy that Obi-Wan and Yoda were doomed....
  12. Talk about twist endings, I just saw Revenge of the Sith a week or so ago, and, man, who would've thunk that Ani ends up being Darth Vader! I didn't see that one coming!
  13. Going on my Christmas list this year. Start saving now. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/014...9608168-0720642
  14. Commenting a bit late here, but Christian, I'd say the book is comic in the ironic sense. When we speak of something being comic, we don't always mean it is humorous in the laugh-out-loud way. Irony is comic, but it is also painful to witness at times, and that's what we've got here in Wise Blood. Although there are a few humorous scenes, most of the comedy is what scholars call the comedy of the grotesque: fraught with irony and very easy to misunderstand. Eerdmans, a few years back, put out a book about the grotesque in literature. I'd give you the title, but it's buried in a box downstairs and I'm lazy.
  15. Yes, it was meant as a joke, but what's scary is that Warren has actually trademarked the name.