asillydreamer00

It's kind of strange that many bookstores now have a separate section for literature, away from the other genres. Who exactly decides what is literature and what isn't? And why, do we as human beings deem it necessary to have pre conceived notions about EVERYTHING.
After thinking about it, I decided to write down what I think some of the qualifications for literature are.

1. If it's foreign. But not just a little bit foreign. It has to be foreign enough to have translators.
2. If the author is deceased. (Apparently J.R.R Tolkien doesn't count...you suck Borders. If Alice in Wonderland is Literature then The Hobbit should be literature too.)
3. If it's not a book you want to be reading, so much as a book that you want to have read. (Don't lie...anyone who reads excessively must know what I'm talking about. Some of these books are just being read to get to the end...which is fine, but you have a problem if all the books you read are like that.)
4. If it's assigned in High school or College.
5. It can't be fantasy, science fiction or mystery. If it's romance it has to be Historical Romance. (Obviously there are exceptions)
6. If it's generally read by people who look down on people who read for entertainment purposes. (Literature professors seem to really hate novels written for pleasure...and particularly Stephen King...all literature professors HATE Stephen King)
(Please note that I don't think all literature follows these rules)

Don't misunderstand me. I love literature and I am constantly wandering bookstores and picking up stuff from both the literature section as from the "lesser" genres -_-. I'm just a bit curious as to WHY some things aren't considered literature. Because frankly, just because people like Stephanie Meyer can sell badly written novels for enormous profit (No offense Twilight followers, but she can't write) doesn't mean that every fantasy novel should be looked down on by literature readers. 

Then there's Stephen King, who has poisoned the horror and sci fi genre (I'm not apologizing to Stephen King fans because I'll bet I've read more of his books then most...the man can write for certain, he's just a bit of a whore)  There are a handful of novels that he's written that are brilliant, but he'll never be in the literature section because 1. His books are sold in grocery stores. 2. They are always a bit gross and a bit smutty (That's where the whore bit comes in. The man's a people pleaser) 3. He makes writing look too easy. (He has written more since he retired then most people write in their whole careers. I don't think this is a bad thing...a writer SHOULD love to write) and 4. He writes horror...Maybe none of this is fair, but because Stephen King is the king of horror you can bet that anything else in the genre is going to get snuffed because he's hated so much by "High Brow" readers.

Lastly, because I have to I bring up Terry Pratchett. I adore Terry Pratchett. An English satirist who actually loves to write, is extremely bright and whose novels have a great understanding of human nature while being immensely fun to read. I've never read a Terry Pratchett book to get to the ending (Although his endings are generally very satisfying). And yet he'll never be in literature either. Why? 1. He writes fantasy and 2. He writes funny books. Not fair.

Oh well, I suppose it doesn't really matter. As long as the books are there who cares where they're put. People who don't venture into the fantasy section because they think they're above it obviously don't get the point. But in reality it's really all the same. There are hundreds of books you wont enjoy in the fantasy section and in the sci fi section and yes in the literature section too and there are hundreds you will. But if you search all of them, your odds are better.

A Review of Excellent Animated Films Released In The Last Five Years (After expressing my disappointment in modern animation I thought I'd talk about the newer animated movies that I DID like)

UP ****(2009 Disney/Pixar): I saw this in 3D on sunday and was pleased to find that it was quite good. It was humorous, charming and even touching at times. And, of course the animation is impressive. I thought it got a bit ridiculous towards the end when the dogs were flying airplanes and shooting at the house, but over all I think it was definitely a success. Also Kevin is AWSOME.

Coraline *****(2009 Laika/Pandemonium): This movie is based off of a children's book by Neil Gaimon, an author whom I am quite fond of, mostly because of his vast amounts of creativity. I have noticed that his plots sometimes wander a bit and his endings occasionally drag on and was therefore not surprised to find that this movie is very much the same way. (It gets off track at times) This was before I actually read the book and found that it was pretty straightforward. The film tacks on a couple of extra characters and plot points that are for the most part unnecessary. Still, despite this, its a great movie. It's inventive, deliciously eerie, has a great score and is absolutely BEAUTIFUL to look at. It's done in Stop Motion Animation and I have to say was a real treat to see in 3D. Definitely check this one out when it's released on DVD.

WALL-E ***** (2008 Disney/Pixar): This is actually the first animated Disney movie I'd seen in theatres since Lilo and Stitch in 2002. After a month of people telling me I should see it because it was cute I finally did. It was cute and that didn't surprise me. What did surprise me was how GOOD it was. This movie has all of the charm of classic Disney films, particularly in the first half when there is very little dialogue and all the humor of modern Disney and Pixar films. I've heard some people say that they think the addition of the humans in the second half ruins it, but I don’t think it does. I look at it more like a marriage between classic and modern Disney in that it features both subtle quiet charm AND colorful boisterous antics. This is Disney and Pixars best film since Toy Story.

Monster House **** (2006 Columbia/Relativity/ImageMovers/Amblin/Sony): This film was done in Performance Capture animation, like the director's previous film, The Polar Express, but with the kinks worked out. It's a shame that this movie did so poorly, it was actually quite good. It was really awesome to look at and was very funny and charming. I imagine that that part of the reason that it flopped was because most people were scared off by the premise, but in reality this movie has a sophistication that most animated features to not manage to obtain and is at certain times quite lovely.

Howls Moving Castle***** (2004/2005 Buena Vista(US distributor) Dentsu, Mitsubishi, Nippon, Studio Ghibli, Tohokushinsha, Tokuma, d-rights): Done in 2D animation. Originally this was released in Japan in 2004, but it had a short run in theatres in the United States in 2005. I, sadly, was not able to see it in theatres, but I did get it when it came out on dvd. I LOVE Hayao Miyazaki. His films are always magical and while I don't think Howls Moving Castle is his best I still really enjoyed it. If your a fan of animation it would be a good idea to look this guy up. He puts Disney to shame.

Well, this would be my first journal entry. Rather then talking about my life in my journal I think I'll use it to talk about my oppinions. This is mostly on account of the fact that my life is very dull and I've always HATED journals. Now that school's out for the summer I spend most of my time either working or, when I'm not workin sitting in front of a computer and doing...well nothing actually. In fact it's astounding how much time I waste doing nothing...like...writing journal entries that no one will read.

With that in mind; animation.

I love animated films. I'm twenty one and over time I think my love for animation has only increased. Part of this, I imagine is because I'm going to art school for illustration and can therefore appreciate the movies from an artist's standpoint. But, as time goes on I find that, though I love animation as much as I always have, the number of animated films I've been willing to see recently has decreased, as well as the number of cartoons I enjoy watching on television.

In the beginning animation was not for children. In fact, most of the earliest cartoons were played in theatres before adult films, which is why The Looney Toons is no longer played on television (although this is also because these days everyone is way too uptight...so instead of edgy humor we get that dumbed down kid friendly and frankly insulting humor that plagues modern cartoons)

It was probably Disney that had the biggest role in changing animated films into something that is now considered predominantly for children. This doesn't particularly bother me. I was born in 1987, so I grew up during the Disney Renaissance. But just because a film is supposed to be kid friendly does NOT mean that it shouldn't also be good. In the 90s Disney released a lot of quality films.

Now Disney is still in the lead, but only with the inclusion of Pixar. Disney by itself is now pretty mediocre. We also have Dreamworks, which releases animated films at least as often as Disney and Pixar do but still constantly finish in second and the occasional release that’s neither.

Now, although I have enjoyed a handful of films that were released since 2000 I still have to complain about a few habits that recent animated features have fallen into.

First of all the animation itself is somewhat disappointing. This is not because it isn’t high quality. When CG animation started to catch on I thought it was phenomenal, but since then it has taken over 2D animation entirely, which is a shame because there was something very beautiful about the painted scenery and hand drawn characters. Something that CG cant capture. It certainly has it’s own high points, but it would be nice if we could have both.

Now, even as I write this I am aware that Disney is preparing to release The Princess In The Frog later this year, a film done in the old style. All I can say is hopefully it’s good, because I have a feeling that while a success can bring the style back, a failure may very well condemn it.

As for cartoons, all I can say is that during my life I've watched all of the kids networks slowly slip into mediocrity. First there was Nickelodeon, which was wonderful and creative and new. This is the network I grew up with and watched constantly. I stopped watching it  around the time Invader Zim got cancelled (The second time) and believe that, in my oppinion, the network no longer has a single decent cartoon on it's lineup. Spongebob was ok for a while, but I saw one of he recent episodes a couple days ago and was amazed at how awful it's gotten.

Nextly there's the Disney Channel. Now this one was never that great. There were few cartoons that were pretty good when I was a kid, but it got bad pretty quickly. Now the Disney Channel makes me sick to my stomach.

Then there's Cartoon Network, which I still watch. Unfortunately I don't know how much longer this is going to last. Lately it seems to be going the way of Nickelodeon. The newer shows are boring, annoying and somehow manage to have no sense of humorwhatsoever.

It seems as though the charm has gone out of most modern animated features and cartoons. Classic Disney films may have been at times sickeningly sweet and the old cartoons may have been a bit simple, but they still had something that todays animated features done. We seem to have acquired impressive graphics at the cost of quality storytelling and tactful humor.