Just an ordinary handbag...

Wow. Sorry it's been so many moons since I last left an entry, folks, but at last I have returned. I hope everyone's Thanksgiving was spectacular; mine certainly was, and a shadow of misery still lays upon me due to the sickening amount of food that I consumed.
It's been snowing intermittently as of late, and I'm glad to see it. I don't want a repeat of non-snowy Christmases; they're so unsatisfying on aesthetic and idealistic levels. As you could probably imagine, Chandler was afraid of the snow at first, but I gently warmed him up to the idea ("warmed him up to the idea"... I crack myself up). Now he just sits there and collects flakes in his mouth. Eleanor, on the other hand, leaps at falling flakes and snaps at them, and is surprised to find there's nothing of substance there. Those kids are funny.
I ended up seeing several films over the holiday, in theaters and otherwise. We rented The Importance of Being Earnest on Friday, and the investment was payed with interest in viewing it. I was familiar with the play, but had never before seen the movie adaptation, and it was excellent. I can clearly see now that Colin Firth is one of the Men*, and it's difficult to go wrong with Oscar Wilde. Overall, kudos.
I also ended up seeing National Treasure, which was a fun romp through conspiracy theories and ridiculous heists. I dug it, though they painted some inaccurate pictures of the Knights Templar (they didn't happen upon Solomon's Temple, and in a macho moment of serendipity decide to name themselves the Knights of the Temple; they commissioned themselves under that name with the Pope, and went to the Temple in search of something which they excavated for for nine years**) and the Freemasons (that they're a bunch of goody two-shoes***). It was still enjoyable, and I liked the decision to have Nicolas Cage portray the way-too-smart conspiracy theorist lead. What I didn't like was that Sean "Boromir/Odysseus" Bean's villain's name was Ian. Ian! Why must a movie tailor-suited to my conspiratorial needs villify my name?!
The highlight of my holiday theatrical experience was undoubtedly Alexander, which I was pleased as punch to see was mostly historically accurate for a change. Of course, I did take issue with some finer points here and there, but I was captivated nevertheless by the film (which is an achievement in and of itself; typically, inaccuracies make me hate a movie because they remove me from the story****). I'm glad people can finally see that Alexander wasn't a bloodthirsty egotistical brat; he had a dream of fusing Greek and Asian peoples to create a Hellenistic culture that combined the best elements of both. Of course he was obsessed with glory, but he wasn't the ruthless, pathological tyrant that some revisionists nowadays attempt to portray him as. Of course, the film did depict him as being bisexual, which I did take serious issue with. The guy was uninterested in romantic entanglements of any sort, as they were a reminder of his mortality. It has only been in the last two decades, due to due to more mainstream acceptance of homosexuality, that his sexuality has become an issue, but the guy wasn't gay! Sure, he was fairly effeminate, but that doesn't make him lavender! For me, the issue isn't his sexuality, it's accuracy. I'm a firm follower of truth, and attempts to distort it, especially to cater to hype and attract publicity or scandal, repulse me. In a climate such as our's today, suddenly we have to re-examine ancient historical figures to look for dirty laundry, and if it isn't there, we invent it, and that's how Alexander becomes gay, and how he acquires an Oedipal fixation on his mother. But it isn't true, folks. What is true, however, was that he conquered most of the known world before he was 32, and regularly defeated armies sometimes seven times the size of his own! That is audacity! Luckily (for me, anyway- sorry, I'm a geek), the film portrays the Battle of Gaugemela, where in 331 BC, he stomped a mudhole through Darius' 270,000 strong Persian army with scarcely more than 40,000 men. That's because of superior training, armament, and the strength of Alexander's ideals against the slave-soldiers of the Persian tyrant Darius, and that's how Alexander never lost a battle.
Whew. Sorry, I was getting super-geeky there. That's probably enough out of me for now, as I get the distinct impression that this entry is getting too long. So, I'll continue touting my geekiness on the morrow, as we'll finally pick up with Part 2 of the History of Middle Earth. Please act excited. No, I know you are all, and I'm shaking like milk to continue it! With that in mind, I bid you all a fond adieu.

Love, Ian

*Long ages ago, I found that giving someone the the distinction of "the Man" suggested that he had no equals in coolness, and knowing that I admired so many dudes, I instead invented the doctrine of "the Men." Thus, any dude of surpassing awesomeness may be bestowed with the honor and know that he is in an inimitable position amongst his fellows.
**Whatever it was, the Knights Templar became super rich off of it as well as the envy of all Christian lords in Europe, as well as the Papacy.
***They're not. By far.
****Well, and I'm a gargantuan nerd. In case you hadn't noticed. Ever.