I have always wanted to read 2001 A Space Odyssey. Not quite sure why beyond the fact that I love science fiction and this book is considered one of the great ones.

I must say, I am a little . . . well, disappointed is too strong of a word . . . it's more just that the book is different than I expected it to be. Normally when I find a book that is given such prowess in the sci-fi or fantasy world, the story is insanely complex (cf. Dune, Lord of the Rings). The story (not the writing or the science behind it, just the plot line) is rather simple in 2001, unless something is going to explode in the last few chapters. Which may yet happen.

The other fun thing I'm noticing is slightly outdated nature of the terms in the book. Not that I didn't explect this, the book was written in the 60s after all. But the devices he's describing do actually exist now, for the most part, just not with those names. And some of the devices are similar in concept, but have different technologies, things he could not have known were coming before 2001. But that's my fault for reading it in 2005.

For example, one of the astronauts has a "newspad" that he plugs in to get updated with all the news headlines of the day. It's remarkable similar to a PDA, without the LCD touch sensitive screen and wireless capabilities. I wish I could tell with such acuracy what may be coming in the next 50 years. My own attempts at sci-fi might be much more believable.

I am very much enjoying the reading of this book. It's a good concept, with good characters, and an exciting plot. I definitely want to see where he's going with the whole thing (besides Saturn).

From Jane Eyre, the musical

I'm painting my portrait
an absolute likeness
faithful to illustrate
every fine line
I'm mastering detail
highlighting defects
making a permanent mirror to see
all of the faults that lie hidden in me

I'm painting my portrait
it's plain and uneven
reminding me what I am
what I must be
I'm leaving out nothing
no matter how painful
all of my flaws on display to be seen

now my painting is done
I'll start another
this one of her
and when I close my eyes
I clearly see her face
capture her grace and poise
fight back the tears and I'm
painting her potrait
and absolute likeness
the loveliest face
the most delicate skin
a tribute to beauty
the perfect Miss Ingram
omit neither diamond ring
nor golden rose
make her a lady of rank
glistening satin
oh, how she glows

mix in your finest tints
paint her dramatically
with all your sweetest hues
sit here fanatically
painting our portraits

this one will live
all of her life as a governess
just a lonely governess

this one will always be happy
and marry a man who will carry her away

and should you fancy
that he really loves you
just compare the pictures
two completely different mixtures . . .

And who saith, "I loved once?"
Not angels, whose clear eyes, love foresee,
Love, through eternity,
And by "To Love" do apprehend "To Be."
Not God, called Love, His noble crown-name casting
A light too broad for blasting:
The Great God, changing not from everlasting,
Saith never, "I loved once."
Oh, never is "Loved once"
Thy Word, Thou Victim Christ, misprized Friend!
The Cross and curse may rend,
But having loved, Thou lovest to the end.

This is man's saying--man's: too weak to move
One sphere'd star above.
Man desecrates the eternal God-ward Love
By his "No more," and "Once."
LOVE NEVER FAILS, and
They never loved who dreamed that they loved once.
Love takes eternity in its embrace.
-- Elizabeth Barrett Browning

Double Heart

I do not have a heart, but stomachs two:
one in the place where stomachs ought to be,
which hungers, diverse pleasures bodily
to fill itself with ere it hungers new.
The other stomach, as a heart should do
entreats for love, though love comes not near me.
Nor ever have I whet in those I see
an appetite, and so I hunger true.
My stomachs then are sick and like to growl,
grow envious at those with only one
stomach and a heart to teach it how
it may at last be filled and then be done.
I need a double hearted person now
else I'd eat up his heart and leave him none.
-- Momtoast

For any of you Snicket fans, Book the Twelfth of A Series of Unfotunate Events is about to appear. It's due in stores in October, but if you simply cannot wait to know something about this next book, you can follow the clues here:

The Nameless Novel

It's a very clever game. Clues come out every day, and you must keep track of them in your commonplace book, or you may not solve the puzzles later on. So far, I've been finding pieces of one of the inside pages of the new book.

If you know nothing of Lemony Snicket and his mission to chronicle the tragic lives of the Beaudelaire orphans, go here.

Last night I was watching PBS. (Yeah, I do that sometimes.) NOVA was on, but a special version of NOVA called "http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/">NOVA Science NOW. It was a rather fun show, with some very fun animated explanations of the science they were talking about. If you haven't seen it, you should try and catch an episode. It reminded me of an adult version of Beakman's World or Bill Nye the Science Guy.

Anyway, they were explaining some new findings in genetics, one of the few fields in science I make some attempt to keep up on, only because I think it's absolutely fascinating. Apparently, very recently, a guy was doing this experiment with some purple petunias . . .

Actually, why don't you watch the clip and them come back.

Purple Petunias

I was really really interested, until I heard what he was suggesting at the end. Do they really want to know what happens to humans when you turn off a gene? I though we already knew some of that: Down Syndrome and Multiple Sclerosis and the like.

Like I said above, really cool idea, but slightly scary.