Johnny Blaze

I apologise to people who disagree, but I thought that was a great film. (I've stopped distinguishing between films so bad they're good, and good films. I think the first is just an apology for liking it :))

Admittedly, it was a great example of the sort of film I like. But on the Jack Rating Guide.

Humour 8.5/10. It's not primarily humorous but many moments are, a few scenes kept us giggling throughout, and many scenes were wonderful set up to whispered side comments, and crucially not of the intended humour was cringeworthy to watch.

( Cut for being freaking cool )

Drinks on me

Tonight a lot of people and I shall be in the Carlton *anyway* from about 8.30, but I might raise a couple of glasses to the pay rise -- if anyone else would like to join me, it'd be good to see you.

Humorous Movie Summaries: Seventh Seal

A knight returning from the crusades tries to find some insight into the nature of the afterlife, but doesn't.

Misogyny in Cryptonomicon

First

First, I expect everyone to agree Cryptonomicon is a very mathmo book :) It diverges from accepted good practice in lots and lots of ways, dumping vast swathes of information on the reader, leaping from event to event with little linkage, and not really being consistent. But despite and because of that I love it.

There's one place where I'm caught in the middle though, and aspect of this. Several friends dislike the portrayal of women in Cryptonomicon. Several other friends couldn't see a problem.

I would say that (to me) it seems written from a male perspective. All of the main characters are men, and the few women featured (Kia, Amy, Charlene, Beryl) or mentioned (various wives, prostitutes) are not really characters in their own right, but exist only to show how the main characters interact with them and think about them.

(The nearest to an exception is Amy, who is cool. But you can't really say anything about who she is, other than what Randy thinks she is.)

Is this a problem?

There is a problem

The portrayal is more tricky. It's *funny*, perhaps because it throws away a lot of social convention. ("Waterhouse did some penis work of his own, got the clap, had it cured. They were like three-year olds who shove pencils in their ears, discover that it hurts, and stop doing it.")

But probably could be described as objectifying because no women are really characters. Eg. Waterhouse and Mary, he falls in love with her without really knowing her at all.

Someone convincingly described Amy as Randy's fantasy. "Fit exotic adventurous virgin besotted with him." And indeed I got the distinct idea I would be an idiot for doing anything other than serviley agreeing.

There isn't a problem

The absence of female characters is hardly unusual, all books can't have everything.

All it is is an accurate portrayal. No-one can live inside anyone else's head. The main characters are men and we get their ideas. All the main characters make sweeping and not especially derogatory generalisations against groups of all sorts, which is something that people do.

They're simply doing the same thing here. No-one said they were *right*, merely interesting to read about.

And Amy's (and Charlene's and Mary's) disproportionate besottedness might seem fake and disproportionate to us, looking out of Randy's head, but love affairs always do. *Everyone* says "I couldn't believe I was so lucky he/she liked me so much."