Stealing with style
The internets are back! Oh internets, I could kiss you.
I've been catching up on my reading for the last few days. I ran across the following, courtesy of
selenak, an analysis of writing that matches it against the style of a famous literary figure. Of course, running just the one fic would give spurious results, so I ran about 20-25 to get a clearer idea of who I've plagiarised the most My Artistic Genius (tm).
My Harry Potter story, Allotted Portions, apparently reads like -
I write like
J. K. Rowling
I Write Like by Mémoires, Mac journal software. Analyze your writing!
So I guess I'm calling that one a success! My Gone With the Wind fic, Nor the Battle to the Strong was also apparently in the style of Margaret Mitchell, so I guess that's good.
Meanwhile, my American Gods fic, do zla boga reads like -
I write like
Vladimir Nabokov
I Write Like by Mémoires, Mac journal software. Analyze your writing!
Flattering, but doubtful. I suspect it was all the Russian in there that swung it.
Even more amusingly, my Sunshine fic Double-bluff apparently reads like -
I write like
James Joyce
I Write Like by Mémoires, Mac journal software. Analyze your writing!
Which left me laughing helplessly. Yes, by all means, let's go with that! Cod-psychology + thinly-disguised porn sounds about right.
Other candidates included Margaret Atwood, Chuck Palahniuk, J.D. Salinger, Shakespeare, Dan Brown (!!!!) and Anne Rice (!!!!!!!!!!).
But ultimately, the winner seems to be the following, which had 15+ fics coming out as this result, until I gave up -
I write like
David Foster Wallace
I Write Like by Mémoires, Mac journal software. Analyze your writing!
I don't even know who this person is, really, so I have no idea whether to be flattered or insulted.
What would be fun with this would be to run extracts from tests that aren't from one of the authors on the available list, and see which author the software would suggest. Or better yet, run some of the texts from the authors that are on the list and see if it picks them up. I remain doubtful, but it is a fun thing to play with nonetheless.
In other news, I finished Cryptonomicon! I feel I should get some sort of award. It only took being isolated from the entire world, mind you, but at least this kept up a consistent sort of sense throughout, rather than abruptly turning into madness 2/3 of the way through like The Diamond Age. I am encouraged, and will have another go at Quicksilver when I get back (immediately after I read Mieville's Kraken, of course, which has been waiting patiently for my return).
I am rather desperate to get back into the swing of writing at the moment, and I'm turning to various bingo cards I still hold and a variety of fics I owe to try to kick-start the process. The problem is, without a deadline, it's prtty difficult to get myself motivated to write. It seems to have become an annual process, waiting around until Yuletide kicks off again, which just isn't good enough, damnit. I'm contemplating rifling through the NYR to see if there is anything there I can get my teeth into.
*
On the TV front, I brought the DVDs of Jekyll (Steven Moffat's baby before DW) with me when I left, and recently watched the lot. It's - hmmm. Well, it's not bad, precisely, and there are certainly lots of positives to commend it. It's good that they don't ignore the original text of Jekyll and Hyde and work that into the narrative. I also really liked the characters of Miranda and Min (played by Meera Syal and Fenella Woolgar, respectively), who make an unlikely and adorable couple. I also rather liked the wife, Claire (played by Gina Bellman), who I felt was able to define a character for Claire outside of the role of 'wife' that the text attempted to box her into. James Nesbitt acquitted himself well as Jekyll and Hyde, sufficiently different in the roles to convince the viewer that these were two people, despite sharing a body. Ultimately, though, the series suffered from over-plotting: in trying to tie everything together so convincingly, Moffat actually makes the set-up less convincing than it might otherwise have been. The viewer is watching a show about a fictional character - they have already suspended their disbelief. They do not need to have the new incarnation of Jekyll explained through cod-genetics and master plans that don't quite hang together.
The villains are also somewhat lacklustre. The friend/mentor figure of Peter Syme makes a convincing turn from confidante to betrayer, but the script doesn't actually give him a motivation other than greed, which sits ill with the character Denis Lawson brings to life. This is a person who wouldn't be motivated by something so simple and petty, and I felt cheated to just have this motivation offered up. Ms Utterson is similarly unconvincing in her motivation. I kept waiting for some sort of deeper motive that would explain the whole Sophia subplot/masterplot that is revealed at the end, but instead it just became more unintelligible to me. Maybe someone else understood it better. But why would Sophia insist that Hyde is actually a manifestation of love when Ms Utterson clearly isn't? And what does she possible hope to gain from dissecting Hyde, anyway? If she is a carrier, then there is really no reason for her to need Hyde so desperately, especially if they already have a cure. If she's interested in testing it so she can lock herself into the Utterson persona and kill Sophia, then once Hyde is 'treated' there is no reason to hold him. Also, if Hyde's sole motivation is protecting his family and this is a key component of the alter-ego, then what on earth was Utterson doing in trying to kill/dissect her son?
Other things are also not explained. Sophia's fake death is not explained (especially the corpse aspect). The twins switch places, even though that's not a power that Hyde ever displayed. The fact that they are twins rather than one person carrying on the legacy and the significance of this is never explored. The character and motivation of Katherine Reimer remains weak throughout, and at the end I was no closer to understanding why she took the job, or what was in it for her - or for Sophia in hiring her, for that matter.
Finally, a hundred years and several generations later will NOT, for the love of all that's holy, produce "an exact genetic duplicate". My knowledge of science is limited, but even I know that. The resemblance to the original Jekyll may be uncanny, but the genetic make-up certainly won't be. Also, the fact that they 'cloned Claire' - WTF? How can you just drop that in there and just leave it? It makes no sense whatsoever.
So, verdict - on the whole, this was well-acted, and had some interesting and scary moments, but ultimately falls down in terms of plot and an over-eagerness to explain a story with science.
Finally, Sky News has just informed me that Robbie will be rejoining Take That. Tell me this is so, internets! Sky News lies, and the 12-yr-old in me that loved TT, and especially Robbie, just can't take the strain of having this dangled in front of me and talen away!
...
I'd probably go to a reunion gig purely for the nostalgia factor, that's all I'm saying.
This entry was originally posted at DreamWidth. There are
comments there. Comments are welcome at either journal.
I've been catching up on my reading for the last few days. I ran across the following, courtesy of
selenak, an analysis of writing that matches it against the style of a famous literary figure. Of course, running just the one fic would give spurious results, so I ran about 20-25 to get a clearer idea of who I've plagiarised the most My Artistic Genius (tm).
My Harry Potter story, Allotted Portions, apparently reads like -
I write like
J. K. Rowling
I Write Like by Mémoires, Mac journal software. Analyze your writing!
So I guess I'm calling that one a success! My Gone With the Wind fic, Nor the Battle to the Strong was also apparently in the style of Margaret Mitchell, so I guess that's good.
Meanwhile, my American Gods fic, do zla boga reads like -
I write like
Vladimir Nabokov
I Write Like by Mémoires, Mac journal software. Analyze your writing!
Flattering, but doubtful. I suspect it was all the Russian in there that swung it.
Even more amusingly, my Sunshine fic Double-bluff apparently reads like -
I write like
James Joyce
I Write Like by Mémoires, Mac journal software. Analyze your writing!
Which left me laughing helplessly. Yes, by all means, let's go with that! Cod-psychology + thinly-disguised porn sounds about right.
Other candidates included Margaret Atwood, Chuck Palahniuk, J.D. Salinger, Shakespeare, Dan Brown (!!!!) and Anne Rice (!!!!!!!!!!).
But ultimately, the winner seems to be the following, which had 15+ fics coming out as this result, until I gave up -
I write like
David Foster Wallace
I Write Like by Mémoires, Mac journal software. Analyze your writing!
I don't even know who this person is, really, so I have no idea whether to be flattered or insulted.
What would be fun with this would be to run extracts from tests that aren't from one of the authors on the available list, and see which author the software would suggest. Or better yet, run some of the texts from the authors that are on the list and see if it picks them up. I remain doubtful, but it is a fun thing to play with nonetheless.
In other news, I finished Cryptonomicon! I feel I should get some sort of award. It only took being isolated from the entire world, mind you, but at least this kept up a consistent sort of sense throughout, rather than abruptly turning into madness 2/3 of the way through like The Diamond Age. I am encouraged, and will have another go at Quicksilver when I get back (immediately after I read Mieville's Kraken, of course, which has been waiting patiently for my return).
I am rather desperate to get back into the swing of writing at the moment, and I'm turning to various bingo cards I still hold and a variety of fics I owe to try to kick-start the process. The problem is, without a deadline, it's prtty difficult to get myself motivated to write. It seems to have become an annual process, waiting around until Yuletide kicks off again, which just isn't good enough, damnit. I'm contemplating rifling through the NYR to see if there is anything there I can get my teeth into.
*
On the TV front, I brought the DVDs of Jekyll (Steven Moffat's baby before DW) with me when I left, and recently watched the lot. It's - hmmm. Well, it's not bad, precisely, and there are certainly lots of positives to commend it. It's good that they don't ignore the original text of Jekyll and Hyde and work that into the narrative. I also really liked the characters of Miranda and Min (played by Meera Syal and Fenella Woolgar, respectively), who make an unlikely and adorable couple. I also rather liked the wife, Claire (played by Gina Bellman), who I felt was able to define a character for Claire outside of the role of 'wife' that the text attempted to box her into. James Nesbitt acquitted himself well as Jekyll and Hyde, sufficiently different in the roles to convince the viewer that these were two people, despite sharing a body. Ultimately, though, the series suffered from over-plotting: in trying to tie everything together so convincingly, Moffat actually makes the set-up less convincing than it might otherwise have been. The viewer is watching a show about a fictional character - they have already suspended their disbelief. They do not need to have the new incarnation of Jekyll explained through cod-genetics and master plans that don't quite hang together.
The villains are also somewhat lacklustre. The friend/mentor figure of Peter Syme makes a convincing turn from confidante to betrayer, but the script doesn't actually give him a motivation other than greed, which sits ill with the character Denis Lawson brings to life. This is a person who wouldn't be motivated by something so simple and petty, and I felt cheated to just have this motivation offered up. Ms Utterson is similarly unconvincing in her motivation. I kept waiting for some sort of deeper motive that would explain the whole Sophia subplot/masterplot that is revealed at the end, but instead it just became more unintelligible to me. Maybe someone else understood it better. But why would Sophia insist that Hyde is actually a manifestation of love when Ms Utterson clearly isn't? And what does she possible hope to gain from dissecting Hyde, anyway? If she is a carrier, then there is really no reason for her to need Hyde so desperately, especially if they already have a cure. If she's interested in testing it so she can lock herself into the Utterson persona and kill Sophia, then once Hyde is 'treated' there is no reason to hold him. Also, if Hyde's sole motivation is protecting his family and this is a key component of the alter-ego, then what on earth was Utterson doing in trying to kill/dissect her son?
Other things are also not explained. Sophia's fake death is not explained (especially the corpse aspect). The twins switch places, even though that's not a power that Hyde ever displayed. The fact that they are twins rather than one person carrying on the legacy and the significance of this is never explored. The character and motivation of Katherine Reimer remains weak throughout, and at the end I was no closer to understanding why she took the job, or what was in it for her - or for Sophia in hiring her, for that matter.
Finally, a hundred years and several generations later will NOT, for the love of all that's holy, produce "an exact genetic duplicate". My knowledge of science is limited, but even I know that. The resemblance to the original Jekyll may be uncanny, but the genetic make-up certainly won't be. Also, the fact that they 'cloned Claire' - WTF? How can you just drop that in there and just leave it? It makes no sense whatsoever.
So, verdict - on the whole, this was well-acted, and had some interesting and scary moments, but ultimately falls down in terms of plot and an over-eagerness to explain a story with science.
Finally, Sky News has just informed me that Robbie will be rejoining Take That. Tell me this is so, internets! Sky News lies, and the 12-yr-old in me that loved TT, and especially Robbie, just can't take the strain of having this dangled in front of me and talen away!
...
I'd probably go to a reunion gig purely for the nostalgia factor, that's all I'm saying.
This entry was originally posted at DreamWidth. There are
comments there. Comments are welcome at either journal.