Blerns & Sob?? (Explanation: Blerns & Sob)

Many of you may have wondered,
'Why am I called Brins?' Or
'why does it say The Home of Blerns & Sob at the top of the page?'

Well, to answer the first question, have a look at the picture there. That's Brins the Bins(C), the world's friendliest binman. As for Blerns & Sob, they're two other characters. All three were created by myself and Rob. That's all you need to know right now.

I hope that's solved some confusions.
  ¶ 6:19 pm  

  Brins Learns To Draw (About Brins)

At school today, I picked up a book about drawing. In case you didn't know, I'm hopeless at drawing; yet, I have a colossal collection of comics I used to draw. I'm pleased with my drawings, as unartistic that they are, but I thought maybe it would be a good idea to have a bash at drawing properly. I'm going to keep reading this book at school, and going through the steps to draw an actual realistic looking person.
Even if I ever do manage to draw properly, I'm still not neglecting my style, hereafter referred to as 'Classic Brins'. It amuses me.

Is anyone here an artist? If you have any top art tips, fire away.  ¶ 8:28 pm  

  Politics

, a subject I know very little about. Mind you, however little you dabble in beauraucracy, there is one part of politics which we all know something about: George Bush.

Why do we all know about him? Just type his name in google and fire it off for your answer. There is one thing that virtually all the sites you'll see agree with: he's an idiot. It seems Bush has messed up Iraq completely, he's giving tax cuts to the richest people in America, even his very rise to his position is drenched in fraud (this is a subject I can't comment on; I know nothing about how the polls worked or what actually happened). However it's put, it appears that the President is a tyrannical imbecile who is ruining the US, not to mention the world, while his re-election can only be accountable to Christian-Fundamentalist zealots who find level ground with his beliefs.

It certainly seems to be fashionable to look on Bush this way: all the top political satirists, heavy-depression-young-anarchists and others in the general 'humanity is a virus' category would bolster their careers/worldviews by pointing directly to the big man himself. Even Brins' friend, Rob, acknowledges Bush as an idiot (feel free to post about it in his debate column, it's rather dry for some reason).

Now, this may very well be (and probably is) attributable to my complete naivety combined with my total lack of understanding of politics, but it seems a bit odd that the American people, however naive or foolish, would back Bush for the re-election by a majority if he was really as bad as he's supposed to be. Surely, if he was driving the world into total chaos (as some anti-Bush advocates claim), wouldn't the senate, the board, or whatever other commitees share continent-running obligations consider rising against him?

I didn't have any views on the issue other than what I've heard from these people until I noticed this site. I stress once more my ignorance of the political regions, but it seems to me only realistic that, whether Bush is indeed messing up a whole bunch of stuff, he must be doing some things right. And what he has done wrong, he must have plans of correcting.

Bush is a controversial figure; and humans like controversy. A twisted side of humanity - a strange but undeniable side - relishes the concept of the most powerful person in the world being a complete, incompetent dunce. The same part that makes us watch horror films and gather at ghost stories seems to act here - the fright and fear of contemplating possibilties or events in a certain light is a pleasurable activity. This has been active among us since sentience. And it's healthy, too: if we couldn't perceive corruption in government or people in this way, it would have been 1984 centuries ago.

It seems to me that many people are jumping on the Bush-leering bandwagon. What I say is not to disrespect people who aren't in favour of Bush, or anyone of any political stance; there may be, and probably are, countless factually backed reasons not to like Bush. But some are probably exaggerated, and many impressionable people pick up urban strands, cling onto as walking sticks, and follow the next person: blind followers of the blind.

They're not going to fall into a pit, though. That is, unless their claims are actually true, in which case we all will.

NOTE OF BRINS: Hopefully I've not stretched the boundaries of civility with this essay. PLEASE don't despise me for my writings in this article; Brins has no desire to disrespect anyone on any side of the subject, and would be very happy to receive comments and criticisms - however harsh - on this essay's contents.  ¶ 6:57 pm  

  An Announcement (Short Essay)

You may be interested to know that I've written a short essay regarding characters unlike that of myself (Brins); it's unrefined and needs to be expanded on slightly at the moment, so I won't post it yet. Still, it gives you something to look forward to.

You may remember my Passing Places critique (I wouldn't call it a review, since it only really argues one point on the whole production); ironically, it seems as though I'm performing that exact play as part of my Drama exam (alongside The Crucible... I hope I do not startle you). In particular, it's the final scene where Binks catches up with our fair heroes.

This reminds me of one more thing I have to say for Passing Places: in the final scene, Shaper (the one Brian and Alex went to see about selling the surf-board) overcomes Binks by claiming to be able to communicate with his dead brother, Ronnie. Setting aside my criticisms about Alex's character development contrasting the plot, this was a golden opportunity for Stephen Greenhorn to make up for some of it by having Alex be the one who overcomes Binks; symbolically quelling his past fears and ties, and embracing his new self.

The problem is, Shaper does it all for him; everyone else just stands there petrified; so Alex comes out of there having learned/defeated nothing: he's still afraid of Binks. This causes the last moments he has with Mirren - as well as his final line, 'I'm just letting it happen' - to be drained considerably of impact.

Anyway, that's all for now.  ¶ 5:36 pm  

  Challenge to Eternity! (CHALLENGE!!)

Since no-one's entered the challenge, I hereby postpone the date of final entry to infinity. Send in your Dr. Wily voices!

I'm back, Brins fans, with some exciting news: my good friend Rob has now expanded from just a blog to his own webpage! Adjust your bookmarks!

I've been put in an awkward situation now since I've been asked to kick off the school Red Nose Day staff karaoke (I know, I'm not staff) with an Elvis song to fire up everyone's spirits. In case you didn't know, my Elvis impersonations are quite famous at school. But which song to sing? I must hurry and decide before Friday. Any ideas, visitors?  ¶ 1:40 pm  

  Passing Places Review

Everyone please excuse Brins if he doesn't appear for a while, but he has much work to do at the moment.

Yesterday, I typed up a great big review of a Scottish play, 'Passing Places' and what I viewed as its shortcomings; sadly, it didn't publish properly and now it's gone. I don't feel like repeating myself anymore, since it really was very long and exhausting to write, but if you've ever heard of/seen/read this play, then I'll just put this miniature review here that sums up the play in my eyes excellently:

(Bear in mind it's late when I write this, and I feel rather tired, so this review will liably lack a lot of force/sense of direction.

It had the potential to be great. Some (seemingly many, since it's renowned as 'the best Scottish comedy play in 10 years') view it to be already, though it boggles my mind as to why. The play in itself may seem alright to the viewer (particularly Binks' scenes can be hilarious when done properly). However, it should have been more. When considering it in a larger context, you realise the entire driving concept is complete nonsense; two youths from Motherwell stole a prized surfboard from their psychotic boss, Binks. Rather than get killed by him, they decide to flee to Thurso in the far north of Scotland to ditch the board. That IS the whole plot. Everything else that happens is somewhat unrelated to this driving force.

Certainly, the audience may well be moved by Alex's frustrations at not fitting in and being viewed as an idiot by his insanely intellectual friend Brian and an outsider by everyone else [I choose to concentrate on Alex as the developed character in this section]. It may be very endearing watching him grow and come of age as a character. But when you start to wonder exactly why he feels like this (bearing in mind the entire point of his escapade is simply to take a surfboard to northern Scotland), or indeed how he develops these concerns in such a short space of time, it flops. This is, I think, really because the play is ruined mainly (perhaps only) on the sheer weakness of the initial concept and basic plot - the only reason these two youths aren't still in Motherwell is that they have to sell off a surfboard.
The way I see it, it doesn't matter how incredible the themes and emotions communicated are in a play, or what the plot developments are, or anything, if they aren't consistant with the plot. That is exactly why Passing Places does not achieve the approval from me it deserves. The boys hardly stop to take into account the reason for their journey; they just continue their journey. No past-references to working for Binks. No points of self-doubt as to why they're going to all this effort for the surfboard. All the things that happen to the characters on the journey and the feelings they harbor are in no way consistent with the plot or its concept; it's as if the script-writer (Stephen Greenhorn) just wanted an excuse to get the youths in a car and heading for Thurso. Greenhorn could have used the plot and made the play work by giving Alex actual reasons to become emotional, show insecurity and feel isolated, but he exhibits all this behaviour very suddenly and inexplicably. If he felt overshadowed by Brian, surely he would have felt so at the beginning of the play.

It's for this reason that, while Passing Places might be an enjoyable and slightly emotional play to watch, it really buckles heavily when put under a critical eye. After studying texts in Higher English for a year, I can say that this play is rather inconsistent with itself.

Really, my qualms are with the script-writer than anything else; he is renowned as a great Scottish play-write, but I feel that he has a fundamental lack of understanding of how to write a truly good play (not that I do, of course, nor that he absolutely does - it's my opinion - but this is how I see it). He can certainly write a decent - even good - play for viewing, but I can't get to terms with him being spoken of as a master of the art, because frankly, he really isn't if you ask me. Passing Places is a play which, to me, begins with a concept and then never develops said concept or indeed develops characters/events with said concept. The boys steal the surfboard and run, after which the play gets lost in a fog, only to come back out right at the end when Binks corners everyone.

I have one thing left to say: I think Greenhorn also made another fundamental error in the play, which made it lose a lot of potential to develop itself in a manner more similar to that I would have wanted for it. The one change I would make to this play if given the chance is to have never introduced Diesel. I'll let you make your own conclusions as to why.

This review lacks much of what the original had, particularly in conciseness. I feel now as if I've just gone over one element of the play whereas before I covered a lot of it. I also feel I've been a bit harsh on Stephen Greenhorn; his play is not rubbish, it's passable as a play to watch, not to analyse. I'll leave the review regardless, because hopefully I'll get some completely contrary points of view from Greenhorn fans. Whatever your stance, please post your comments on the post and I'll be sure to respond. Thanks.  ¶ 9:20 pm  

  Megaman....The Movie? (Short Essay)

I'm sorry if you're getting tired of all these Megaman-related posts, but this is simply too funny to ignore:

Megaman: The Movie

Made by a group of college students for a project, this is shaping up to be an unforgettable experience for the whole family.

Seriously, though, it starts off startlingly authentic... but tails off the second Dr. Light (at least I assume it's him) opens his mouth. And just wait until you see the evil robot.

Bad acting/CGI aside, the trailer at least has been very professionally made. Congrats to the team behind it.

Now, no more Megaman for at least a month. I promise.  ¶ 5:15 pm  

  Death on Google (Something Else)

If you check on Google, you'll notice at the home page a small obituary for a man named 'Jef Raskin'. Checking the link, I discovered he was the creator of the Apple Macintosh (named after his favourite apple, the 'McIntosh') and the innovator of the 'click and drag' system.

It surprises me to see Google putting this up for him. I suppose whoever's at the helm of the search engine must have an undying respect for him.

I just thought this was curious enough to post here.

Update: Google's taken Raskin's death off their site now.  ¶ 5:15 pm