Battle Commences
I've been meaning to mention this for a week or more:
Tokyopop, a company which has made a bit of a reputation for itself publishing English language versions of shojo manga, is branching out into more mature source material.
Next month, they'll begin publishing an English version of one of the most adult of them all - Battle Royale. Based on the novel which also inspired the (excellent) film, the plot involves a future(ish) society which sends random groups of schoolchildren to an otherwise uninhabited island to take part in a fight to the death, broadcast on TV. The action is uncompromisingly grim, and very much not for the faint-hearted; the themes are handled very seriously.
The series is being adapted by well-known artist and writer Keith Giffen - note that he's adapting it, not translating it - he's trying to transfer the spirit of the original for a non-Japanese mindset, rather than deliver a word-for-word equivalent.
I've seen a couple of issues in the original Japanese, and am *really* interested in seeing how this new version turns out.
There's a Newsarama item on it here.
The Joy Of Comments
If you're one who doesn't keep an eye on the 'Recently commented on' box over on the left, you may have missed out on one of those glowing additions to the sparkling More a way of life.... dialogue which has grown on my post from two weeks ago, "Though I will say", and really, you shouldn't miss out - it's a cracker.
The reason I was thinking about it is that Gert's mention of her 'recent comments' space triggered a mental reminder to make sure people weren't missing it.
Popular Fallacies – The Bank Draft
Okay, so I'm going to have a *bit* of a rant.
You know bank drafts? Did you, like me, and most other people I've spoken to on the subject, have the impression that a bank draft is "as good as cash"? That once deposited in your account, it would be credited and available to draw on the same day?
Completely wrong, apparently.
"All it does is guarantee that the funds are available. It still takes three and a half days actually to clear."
This is what I mean by the banking industry's utterly arcane and archaic mechanisms. The cash is debited from the issuing account immediately, so in that sense, it's certainly as good as cash (though with a charge applied for the privilege of having it made out), but the receiving bank then has to put it through a paper system to reconcile it that takes days. It's like these people are still working by means of abacus and carrier pigeon. Really and truly, why not just take out the cash and travel between banks with a couple of hefty mates?
What, to reduce matters to their finest, is the fucking point?
Categories Again
About a month ago, I did a review of the way my postings had broken down by the categories I've got going on behind the scenes, and I thought it was about time I checked to see whether the ballance had changed. So here's the latest break-down - detail in brackets shows what the change is from last time.
Blogs and Blogging: 30 Entries (up 9)
Comics: 6 Entries (up 4)
Just Plain Weird: 3 Entries (no move)
Life: 59 Entries (up 17)
Links: 19 Entries (up 5)
News: 18 Entries (up 7)
Politics: 23 Entries (up 4)
TV and Film: 20 Entries (up 7)
I have no idea what this means....
No, I Won’t Rant….
....It's not good for my blood pressure.
But I could have had a right go about the iniquitous behaviour of banks. No-good, archaic, grasping, unreasonable tossers that they are. And yes, I'm even including my usually beloved own bank in among the rest of the arseholes on this occasion.
But I won't rant - it's not good for my blood pressure.
George Clooney’s Arse
There you go - that should spike my search results.
In case you don't get the reference, I should indicate that I haven't entirely taken leave of my senses, but have in fact been to see Solaris this evening. And very good it was too. I *will* do a proper review of it when I'm not so tired. (So, summer 2005 looks a bit likely.)
Apologies to anyone who's been trying to mail me this evening, after a long time of being excellent, my formerly-beloved hosts are having trouble *again*. Reading their support forum is an interesting experience. After a couple of years of "we love you guys - you provide such a great service", suddenly it's more "Problems *again*? You guys promised us such great service, and now it's crap. You suck!" (I exaggerate. A little.)
George Galloway Revisited
I mentioned the current assault on the reputation of Labour MP George Galloway a couple of weeks ago, but of course, it doesn't go away.
The Telegraph has 'uncovered proof' that he was in the pay of Baghdad, and The Sun has leapt on board with the headline "Galloway 'Paid By Saddam'".
Galloway denies the claims, which were based on file allegedly found miraculously undamaged in the Iraqi foreign ministry. The BBC outlines the claims and counterclaims involved here.
No New Ideas
A couple of weeks ago, Charles mentioned an idea of setting up a site that would allow people to match their views with a range of religions, to give an introduction to some potentially compatible belief system.
Gert, as it turns out, has already found it (or somethingrather like it) at BeliefNet.
Having had a go, my own results are as follows:
1. Secular Humanism (100%)
2. Unitarian Universalism (98%)
3. Liberal Quakers (83%)
4. Nontheist (82%)
5. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (79%)
6. Theravada Buddhism (67%)
7. Neo-Pagan (61%)
8. Taoism (52%)
9. Bah·'Ì Faith (50%)
10. New Age (48%)
11. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (43%)
12. Reform Judaism (43%)
13. Mahayana Buddhism (37%)
14. New Thought (37%)
15. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (36%)
16. Orthodox Quaker (35%)
17. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (32%)
18. Scientology (32%)
19. Sikhism (23%)
20. Jainism (22%)
21. Jehovah's Witness (20%)
22. Islam (17%)
23. Orthodox Judaism (17%)
24. Seventh Day Adventist (12%)
25. Eastern Orthodox (8%)
26. Roman Catholic (8%)
27. Hinduism (5%)
I don't much mind any of this, since I'm not interested in any of them except in the sense of intellectually, and as long as no one's suggesting I ought to be believing in some kind of god-type-thing.
UPDATE - edited Monday morning because Dave spotted my hilarious typo 
In Praise Of Magic Jane
I caught up with this week's (Sky One transmission of) Buffy and Angel last night - two very high-quality examples of The House of Whedon's art indeed.
I won't dwell on the Angel here, except to say that Faith is back, and in a pretty major way.
What I want to write about is First Date, Jane Espenson's brilliant Buffy episode, or more specifically, about the writer's work. I read recently a description of her as "the best Buffy writer not called Joss Whedon", and I want to support that description 100%. In his excellent series guide Slayer, Keith Topping took to referring to her as 'Magic Jane', which I love - it brilliantly sums up the deftness and quality of her work. She's known as a writer of the lighter episodes,, and she certainly does humour superbly well, but she mixes in the action, the drama and the suspense right in alongside it, and turns out the whole that puts her leagues ahead of the other writers on the series, most of whom are excellent in any case. Jane Espenson herself has gone on record as saying that because Whedon has a close overview of the writers' work, that it doesn't make much sense to single out any one of them as being better than any of the others at any specific type of story, but it surely can't be coincidence that there isn't a single duff episode with her name on it.
And she's not just 'the comedy writer' either. As Keith Topping points out, her first contribution to Season Six, After Life is among her best work, and there's "not a joke in it worthy of the name".
As Buffy nears its end, and so much attention is inevitably focused on the cast and on Whedon himself, I think it's worth drawing some attention to the others who've made the series the phenomenon it's been.
Magic Jane, we salute you.