movies from books always end badly

now that i blogged about the olsen twins, whom i don't even like, i might add--i feel that it is my duty to share with the world (i.e. the 2-3 people out there who happen to read this occasionally) my thoughts on audrey niffenegger's latest novel her fearful symmetry in the event that this book also be made into a movie. p.s. the time traveler's wife was a phenomenal book and piss poor film.



i make the link between the o-twins and niffenegger's latest because it is essentially a tale of twins. the description of the youngest twins at one point in the novel compares them to spindly dandelions with white puffs for heads/hair, which while reading made me think of mary-kate and ashley. i would love for one day to be a casting agent in hollywood. they need someone who actually READS the novels to pick the actors that play these people. i hate reading about a very well described character only to find that if the book becomes a movie, the actor looks nothing like i would have imagined them to be. this is why i now forgo films about books i've read and don't waste my time on the books that most films are made after (i.e. anything by nicholas sparks or the twilight series for example). i've come to conclude since i have completed school that my time is precious and cannot be wasted on such shenanigans as bad books and films. this my dears, is why i waste my time blogging and facebooking instead. ;) furthermore, i have craft projects to complete this week as i am on vacation from my job (yes, i finally snagged a little job here, too...champagne all around!). now that i have said my piece on the casting of the tiny skeletons should this book ever hit the silver-screen, i am off to dismantle a shoe cabinet and refurb an old dresser. toodles!

flexitarianism? just another "ism" on the list.

as if the nutritional realm didn't have enough alphabet soup already, the term "flexitarian" is now becoming a popular pin-up girl type of jargon. i've been reading up on this idea myself because in my last post i was quite adamant that i would remain a full-fledge veg here in france. this was the case until we went to dinner at friends and the only items on the menu contained meat-based ingredients. these people KNEW i was a vegetarian and yet informed me: "fais pas chier et manges." for all of the non-francophone readers out there, ne cherche pas.

now, when i hear the term flexitarian, i get this mental image:




obviously, i am right on the money. this man has got to be all over the beef enchiladas and protein shakes. but actually, flexitarians, according to what i've found, are nothing more than "meat restrictors." this is to say, meat is generally avoided and in the following order:

1. red meat (never eaten/rarely eaten)
2. poultry and fish (occasionally eaten)

against my own desire and intentions, i think i'm flexing the ol' flexitarian muscle here in gaulois country. i think meat is something i may have to be prepared to eat if we are invited out. while most people are understanding and accommodating, as i mentioned above, others are not. i won't even go into the difficulty of requesting a vegetarian meal in a french restaurant! nonetheless, i intend to stick to my veggie ways within the confines of my home (last night i made couscous stuffed artichokes with french fries...DIVINE!!!) but lest i become one of those strange women who never goes outside, i think i had better make some big decisions fast.

p.s. i can't believe that in less that six months i caved! what a weenie. in my defense, however, if i know where the meat is coming from (i.e. fished/hunted by a friend, locally grown and butchered, free-range, organic, etc.) i feel like i have more of a choice as to whether or not i will consume it. i also am not just on the rampage consuming meat like a half-starved zombie (no, i am not talking about the olsen twins, either). helas, here are my musings on my failed stint as a vegetarian, tome deux.