What happened to Stephen Dorff? He used to make really interesting, good indie films like Entropy and S.F.W and he was awesome as Stuart Sutcliffe in Backbeat. Now he's appearing in a bunch of craptastic horror movies like Fear Dot Com.

People kept calling Craig Scheffer by mistake?

No, that's not right, since he isn't working either.

Josh Brolin? Nah, too busy getting in fights with Diane Lane.

I wonder what makes that so. Is it that Steinbeck's level of detail that drives me batty because I just want him to "GET ON WITH THE STORY ALREADY!!!" adds to the story in profound ways for other people? The way Catch-22 wanders back and forth, peeling back the layers of the characters and the absurdity of their situation works for me, but it could just as easily irritate other readers, and I wonder what makes that the case. Does it depend on our personalities or what we're used to reading or what?

And, see? I agree with you 100% about Steinbeck. And yet, Catch-22 didn't work for me. I am curious about why that is. Probably since I was usually the person who didn't like something, for some reason or another, when I was in high school, and these books were changing the lives of my classmates. Maybe my problem is that no book has ever changed my life. I love books. I adore them, and they can make me cry hysterically, or crack up for days, at just the thought of a funny line, or they can interest me, and I'll think about something that they propose, and yet? Not a single one has ever touched me so deeply that I've felt changed by it. And I was always a little weirded out by people who would say something like, "oh, you have to read Atlas Shrugged. It will change your life," because I usually just ended up thinking that those people's grasp of reality, and life, was rather fragile.

Perhaps I'm just crazy set in my ways, despite not being 95, or whatever.

ETA: The most horrible book I've ever been recommended is most likely Wuthering Heights, however. That is not a romance. Anyone who says differently has some really messed up idea about romance, and should look into getting some therapy. It has horrible characters, doing horrible things to each other, and I can't stand any of them. And it creeps me out that people are constantly shocked at my opinion on the book, because they thought it was "sweet."

Oh I don't know, I think I'm a little averse to any "It will change your life" statements. And yet, I can see the ways in which certain art has had an effect on me. I just think if I had a life changing experience everytime I read a good book I'd be exhausted with the enlightenment.

I think Amélie is the only movie that lived up to its "she'll change your life" promise, and even then the effect was limited to the decor of my bedroom.

I have a couple of friends who claim that South Pacific turned them gay.

Hee. I was just reading this blog entry about a movie that's showing today on TCM, with a fanciful story about why the movie even exists in the first place.

I am totally with Alibelle on Wuthering Heights.

I was so disappointed in Wuthering Heights. Heathcliff can stay the hell away from me, thanks, that psychopath.

Love Steinbeck. Hate Catch 22. Love THHGTTG. Love Wuthering Heights, but calling it a romance is a terrible terrible idea - the whole point of the novel, to me, is the horribleness of the characters. And the beautiful gothicness of it. Jane Eyre is closer to a romance if you want a Bronte romance, but we're still not talking Jane Austen.

Tim should adapt all of these books I like. That way, I'm on topic.

I couldn't love Catch-22 more. Same goes for Jane Eyre and 1984. Wuthering Heights made me want to gouge my eyes out.

My secret shame? I've never read a Heinlen in my entire life.