HOL Accomplishment 1/30/2008 10:07:00 PM

My team made it to the semi-final! Yay! It might not be a big deal, yet for this particular task, I can’t help being proud of us, of myself.

Task 7 was a multimedia task in which the teams were required to create something funny regarding Dolores Umbridge. I suggested making a comic, since I couldn’t think of anything better and simpler, and my partner agreed. And that’s what we decided to make in the end. She created a hilarious Umbridge story and I was left with the responsibility of drawing the comic. No problem. Except for one minor hitch. I couldn’t draw.

There were quite a lot that I had to do before I started drawing. Animals were my weakest point, and because a frog was to be presented in the story, I needed to find frog-illustration as example. After that, I dug into my magazine collection for some doujinshis, to get an idea of how panels were parted.

I will definitely upload the fan-comic here once the winner of task 7 is announced. Until then, I’m going to enjoy this intoxicating sense of self-accomplishment.

Note: Of course, my thanks should go to my partner, Neti, for her story.

The Name of the Rose (Umberto Eco) - review 2 1/24/2008 06:38:00 PM

Name was important, there’s no doubt about it. It simplified a concept. Could you imagine how complicated it would be if things didn’t have names attached on them? How would you distinguish one thing from another?

Yet, as Juliet (or Shakespeare) beautifully pointed out, name was nothing but a representation of the concept it conveyed. In the end, that concept was more important than its name. But was it?

The paradox was everywhere in The Name of the Rose, even in the smallest of things like Adso’s detailed description on the church’s door carving (?). Not only that it had pictures of heaven and earth (and their inhabitants), but it also portrayed fantastic animals from the Bestiary. Remember that these creatures were imaginary, existed only in the world of ideas. However, the readers could easily identify them through their names--griffin, chimera, manticore, incubus--as if they were as real as elephant or monkey or chicken. Their names were everything because without them, these imaginary creatures would be nothing more than a set of ideas hidden inside their creator’s mind. In the same time, the names also meant nothing for the concept it represented had no existence in “reality.” Say the name “griffin” to one who’s not familiar with it and then it would simply be considered as a ridiculous cross-breeding of eagle and lion, losing its entire context.

We also got to see how a name became so powerful that it became the driving force behind someone’s actions and motives. Driven by his love of God, and his abhorrence towards everything unholy, the antagonist unremorsefully orchestrated six murders within the abbey’s walls. It’s ironic really, in his attempt to stop the coming of anti-Christ, he became the very representation of anti-Christ itself. In this case, the name became so powerful, more powerful than the concept it represented.

Despite all the complexities, The Name of the Rose was a worthy read. Putting aside the semiotic-thingy, it’s still enjoyable as a thrilling detective story.

Note: I’m not familiar with griffin, by the way.

The Name of the Rose (Umberto Eco) - review 1 1/19/2008 10:36:00 PM

It took lots of energy to read The Name of the Rose. I knew nothing about 15th century Europe, not to mention that the translation was bad (Indonesian version which was translated from English v. which was translated from the original Italian). And I didn’t understand what the main focus of the story was: the murder and the mysterious book, Inquisition and various Christian sects, 15th century political strife in Europe, or Adso’s constant amazement on illustrative depictions of heaven and hell?

But the greatest mystery of all was the title. Why was it called The Name of the Rose? A curious selection indeed, since there wasn’t any rose mentioned in the book. Nevertheless, after thinking long and hard, I finally see how the title possibly relates to the content of the story. Out of convenience, and because it fits my understanding, I’d refer to Shakespeare’s “rose” in Romeo and Juliet to analyze (albeit unscholarly) that relation.

On Romeo and Juliet, Act 2 Scene 2 (the legendary balcony scene), Juliet uttered these words:

What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes

Juliet couldn’t say it more clearly--name is nothing but a jumble of sounds (and symbols, if it’s written). Without the name, Romeo would still be the same person, would he not?

However, some time later, still on the same scene, Juliet negated her declaration by saying:

Yet I know the sound:
Art thou not Romeo and a Montague?

Romeo would always be Romeo Montague, no matter how beautifully he tried to say otherwise. Hence the paradox: name is nothing, but it’s everything. And that, my friends, is a focal point in Umberto Eco’s The Name of the Rose.

to be continued....

Fiction without Anachronism 1/09/2008 09:13:00 PM

A good story is one that is believable. One that, no matter how impossible, manages to capture the heart of its readers. Sending people on time-travel is one thing, but inaccurate historical detail is another thing.

Anachronism sucks, especially if it’s caused by the writer’s ignorance. If you don’t care performing background check for your story’s setting before it’s completed, you might as well create your own universe. But if you’re still too lazy to do so and yet insist on create a story set in the past, I have some tips for you.

Alternate universe rules, man!
Ah, how we all love alternate universe. Setting your place in another “universe” is the easiest way to tackle anachronism. Imagine having a story set very much like Victorian England, but taking place in planet X (wherever that is) or the country of Y. So if someone scolds you because airplanes haven’t been invented at that time, you can point out that it’s NOT about Victorian England. On second thought, don’t even mention a particular time and place in which the story happens. You won’t get any trouble if you do that.

Yay for common men!
Don’t place prominent historical figures in your story. If you depicted them inaccurately, for example: having them come face-to-face with someone who lived 200 years before their time, there’s a good chance that people would notice. Write a story about common men/women instead, nameless faces in history. It’s safer.

Recreating the characters
A particular historical event catches your attention, but the research is too overwhelming? Don’t worry, just recreate them. Retain the aspects of that event, but place them in contemporary era. You might want to modify the names of characters (e.g. Okita Souji to Okita Soushi; get my point?).

Parody/comedy kills!
No matter how many inconsistencies might be in your story, it won’t matter as long as it’s a parody/comedy. As long as it’s as funny as it should. In Robin Hood: Men in Tights, Robin Hood’s men were wearing sunglasses and singing rap. And nobody cares about the anachronism, because it’s hilarious.