One Step Forward, Two Steps Back
by Scott Hardie on March 11, 2007
Ah, Newsweek. You deliver a comprehensive cover story about the current state of evolutionary theory, barely slipping in a quick nod to the cultural debate, in an article that sticks wisely to the science. What do you follow up with as the B story in this week's science section? Unlocking your psychic powers.
One Reply to One Step Forward, Two Steps Back
Logical Operator
The creator of Funeratic, Scott Hardie, blogs about running this site, losing weight, and other passions including his wife Kelly, his friends, movies, gaming, and Florida. Read more »
A Friend Received This Fortune in His Fortune Cookie
"Wow! A secret message from your teeth." Go »It's All About Me
I regret if my rantings around this site have come across either whiny, as I coped with illnesses and a busy schedule, or hypocritical, as I griped about Christmas cheer while still participating in the holiday. I don't regret if they came across as self-centered. Go »Rethinking Forrest Gump
Inspired by a conversation this past weekend, I've been thinking about the once-popular movie Forrest Gump. It has fallen out of favor with people who prefer its contemporaries Pulp Fiction and The Shawshank Redemption and believe it robbed them of Oscars, but to me all three films are good. Gump succeeds because of a lot of factors, but consider its acting and its visual effects. Go »Signs and Wonders
Driving through Georgia now. Just passed a plain yellow billboard saying The God with Moral Fault, amazon.com. Hidden agenda? Go »All King and No Kubrick Make Jack a Dull Boy
I recently got to talking with friends who liked The Shining, both Stephen King's novel and Stanley Kubrick's film adaptation of it, but who were unaware that King has always loathed the movie, despite its reputation as one of the best horror films ever made. It's hard to imagine that a writer doesn't know his own work better than someone interpreting it, but I think this is one of those rare cases where the writer is just too close to the story to get it. Here are three reasons why I think Kubrick's film better understands the material, and is better overall, than King's novel: 1) In King's version, Jack Torrance is a fundamentally decent man who wouldn't hurt a fly, but who is down on his luck and desperate. Go »
Lori Lancaster | March 13, 2007
[hidden by author request]