Booklist & Must-Haves:
Eragon
Ignorance by Milan Kundera
The Annotated Legends (Dragonlance)
The Princess Bride
LotR journals and jewelry on this site

Dear me, Mr. Holmes, dear me!

I was in the 3rd grade when I started reading Sherlock Holmes. My grandmother bought me 3 books which contained 3 to 4 adventures each. Unfortunately, these were the abridged versions, and sadly, the chapters on the Great Plains of Utah were not included in their version of A Study In Scarlet. Of course, during the time I was reading the books, I didn't know that there were chapters explaining the origins of Enoch Drebber and company. I finished all three books in one sitting and begged my grandparents for more. Thankfully, my grandfather had enough faith in my reading capabilities (or maybe in the huge Oxford dictionary I always kept beside me then) and bought me Sherlock Holmes: The Complete Novels and Stories Volumes I and II. I was hooked. And contrary to what some anti-Watson factions have been saying, I do not think that they were gay and I do not think that Watson was a complete imbecile.

I still read the books every now and then. My favorites are The Valley of Fear, The Adventure of the Empty House (where Holmes makes a comeback) and all of the stories in The Return of Sherlock Holmes, and of course, A Study in Scarlet. Although not a particular favorite (perhaps due to the fact that I was constantly disturbed while reading its unabridged version), I think The Sign of the Four is the most exciting.

I've one pet peeve though. There is not enough information or confrontations with Professor Moriarty! Holmes describes him as "...the Napoleon of crime...", and even reminisces one morning that the the London crime scene has become boring with the death of "the late and lamented" Professor Moriarty. This means that Moriarty must have been a truly brilliant man- perhaps an equal (or even more?) of Holmes' brilliant mind. A series of confrontations, with both parties trying to outwit each other, would have been exhilirating to the true Sherlockian. Same goes with Irene Adler. The three characters that for me, were the most interesting (aside from Watson and Holmes) were also the most mysterious. Sherlock describes his brother Mycroft to be more intelligent than he is, and even Watson shares this observation. Can you imagine what a Sherlock-Mycroft tag team would be like against say, Moriarty and Moran?

When I was in high school, I came across an article in a magazine titled Tea with Moriarty. It's an interesting pastiche that takes place sometime before the incidents in The Valley of Fear. What is a pastiche, you say? It's the preferred Sherlockian term for fanfiction, in my opinion, but if you want a more formal meaning, it's actually the French word for a parody or literary imitation. I found this at merriamwebster.com:
Main Entry: pas·tiche
Pronunciation: pas-'tEsh, päs-
Function: noun
Etymology: French, from Italian pasticcio
Date: 1878
1 : a literary, artistic, musical, or architectural work that imitates the style of previous work; also : such stylistic imitation
2 a : a musical, literary, or artistic composition made up of selections from different works : POTPOURRI : HODGEPODGE

I found Tea with Moriarty at Sherlockian.Net. It's a one-stop site for all things, well, Sherlockian. There are links to other sites that feature pastiche. There are funnier ones that can be found all over the Net, but I think Tea with Moriarty will always be my favorite, primarily because of Moriarty, and because it stays true to the Canon (the original works of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle). I like my Sherlock Holmes pure.

I was going through the usual forwards and announcements at the iAcademy Yahoogroups when I read this "story" about a stable, feet-firmly-planted-on-the-ground guy and his wife who wanted to leave him because apparently, he wasn't romantic or spontaneous enough. At the end of the story was this line:

Just because someone doesn't love you the way you want them to doesn't mean that they don't love you with all they have...


It got me thinking. Is there a universal truth on the proper way to love? Let's take two couples who are financially stable and who have, let's say, 2 kids each of the same ages. Both wives have careers and aren't suffering from any "unfullfilment" issues. Both have responsible, caring, and understanding hubbies. Both husbands help out at home and take care of the kids. Now, aside from having these qualities, Husband #1 occasionally treats his wife out to dinner, brings her roses and surprises her with trinkets she is interested in (be it jewelry or kitchenware) even if there is no special occasion, and without her having to ask. Husband #2 treats his wife out to dinner only on special occasions like birthdays and anniversaries. He doesn't buy her anything unless she asks for it. No cards, no flowers. But he loves her with the same intensity as Husband #1 loves his wife. Does that mean that Husband #1 is just more thoughtful? Or is Husband #1 really more "loving"? If I weren't in such a pensive mood, I'd just say Husband #2 is a cheapskate. =)

goodbye star maiden, hello coffee beans...

Oh well, it was pretty while it lasted. The Star Maiden skin just loaded so darn long! I'm too lazy to design a skin right now, hence the semi-old layout with a new coffee bean background =) Today was the first day of school... All I can say is that we have a pretty cool Phil Lit teacher...