If I were cleverer, and more hard working, I would do something super connecting my blog title with The Great Gatsby, which would connect with the last blog post (which had a reference to a great Chris Bohjalian novel that used Gatsby as its central theme), which would somehow knit together neatly with the T.S, Eliot poem referred to at the get-go. Alas, my blog title refers to the wrong T.S. Eliot poem to make any of that actually work.
Which is about as me as you can get. I love to read, and I read a lot. But I am apt to get the reference a little bit wrong, mis-remember the quote just slightly, miss the thematic connection, etc. I'm an amateur reader, not a scholar.
As if you needed further proof: the 40th book I read in this just-over-one-year exercise was the latest in the Stephanie Plum series by Janet Evanovich. Given that I've read about sixteen of the total (thus far) nineteen in the series, I am not in a position to throw stones. They're not great books. They used to be hugely entertaining. Now, it's more a matter of habit that I read them at all. This one was thoroughly adequate.
Having this blog has been interesting. It has made me realize that I value taking the time (though I don't do so frequently) to stop and reflect on what I'm doing. It's made me realize that I like having people weigh in on what I say; that the conversation is nearly as interesting to me as the reflection. I've learned that I am not good at, nor am I fond of, writing summaries. Part of why I started my other dream blog is that I think it would be interesting to try to get better at writing descriptions, particularly things that are incredibly vivid and hard to describe. I might try to keep at that one.
But I think this one is done! What a fun little journey this has been! Thank you, if you've been reading! Having a goal always motivates me, even if I don't actually achieve the goal. Striving, I find, I get somewhere other than I would have gotten, even if I don't get to where I thought I might go.
Thank you, and good night.
Saturday, February 2, 2013
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Books #38 & 39
I'm kind of deflated, actually.
I was just about to write about the two most recent books I've finished, Minding Frankie by Maeve Binchy, and The Double Bind by Chris Bohjalian. And I was doing what I do when I prep to write one of these blogs: opening up Amazon windows and author pages to link through to. I was going to talk about how pleasing I find Maeve Binchy's books; I've probably read ten. I was going to tell you about how I don't understand the appeal, given that the books are broadly predictable and vaguely mushy, but that I genuinely love them, every time.
And what I found was this memorial on Maeve Binchy's author page.
Maybe when she died, I did hear about it. I don't remember it, though. And seeing that announcement really deflated me.
Another time, maybe, I'll talk about books #38 and 39. For now, I'm just going to look through the list of books that Maeve Binchy wrote, and see what I recall, and enjoy remembering them.
I was just about to write about the two most recent books I've finished, Minding Frankie by Maeve Binchy, and The Double Bind by Chris Bohjalian. And I was doing what I do when I prep to write one of these blogs: opening up Amazon windows and author pages to link through to. I was going to talk about how pleasing I find Maeve Binchy's books; I've probably read ten. I was going to tell you about how I don't understand the appeal, given that the books are broadly predictable and vaguely mushy, but that I genuinely love them, every time.
And what I found was this memorial on Maeve Binchy's author page.
Maybe when she died, I did hear about it. I don't remember it, though. And seeing that announcement really deflated me.
Another time, maybe, I'll talk about books #38 and 39. For now, I'm just going to look through the list of books that Maeve Binchy wrote, and see what I recall, and enjoy remembering them.
Monday, January 7, 2013
Book #36 & #37
Book # 36: I listened to a book-on-not-tape ("audio book," I know, but book-on-tape is still how I think of it) of a book I found through the Goodreads list of the Funniest Books of 2012.
Where'd You Go, Bernadette, by Maria Semple, read by Kathleen Wilhoite was completely wonderful: weird, interesting, funny, challenging, expansive, bright. Totally loved it. Wilhoite did a really lovely job narrating and voicing the book. I was taken aback (in a good way) when she sang "O Holy Night" as part of the novel; she's got a spectacular singing voice. It's a book I would love to reread with my eyes someday.
Book #37: Laurie Notaro, in arant against Fifty Shades of Grey recent column made a list of books we all should be reading; old classics that have been forgotten (or a few that have been, luckily, recently republished). So, taking her sage advice, I got Nightingale Wood by Stella Gibbons from the library. It was such a delight!
Set in the late-1930's in pastoral England, it's the story of a Viola, a shopgirl who married up. After less than a year of marriage, her husband has passed away, and she's been summoned to live with the Withers, her in-laws, at their country estate. Life is dull, with her spinster sisters-in-law, snobbish mother-in-law, and stingy father-in-law.
Gah, I hate summarizing books. There's a perfectly serviceable summary on the amazon link above. The point is, I really loved it.
Where'd You Go, Bernadette, by Maria Semple, read by Kathleen Wilhoite was completely wonderful: weird, interesting, funny, challenging, expansive, bright. Totally loved it. Wilhoite did a really lovely job narrating and voicing the book. I was taken aback (in a good way) when she sang "O Holy Night" as part of the novel; she's got a spectacular singing voice. It's a book I would love to reread with my eyes someday.
Book #37: Laurie Notaro, in a
Set in the late-1930's in pastoral England, it's the story of a Viola, a shopgirl who married up. After less than a year of marriage, her husband has passed away, and she's been summoned to live with the Withers, her in-laws, at their country estate. Life is dull, with her spinster sisters-in-law, snobbish mother-in-law, and stingy father-in-law.
Gah, I hate summarizing books. There's a perfectly serviceable summary on the amazon link above. The point is, I really loved it.
Tuesday, January 1, 2013
Movie #11 - This is 40
If you have been reading this, maybe you know I have a weakness for what I like to call "Dumb Guy Movies". Here is what I love about them:
1) Dumb Guy Movies do not give you a headache.
2) Your heart does not race when you watch Dumb Guy Movies.
3) Dumb Guy Movies don't make you queasy.
This Is 40 is the painful and funny story of a couple who are suddenly 40 and don't know what to make of their lives, together or individually. They've been married for years, have a couple of kids, unusual relationships with their own parents, and so forth.
As often happens in Judd Apatow movies, you veer uncomfortably between incredibly hilarious moments and truly heart-wrenching moments. It never goes to sappy, mostly because of the really amazing performances (Paul Rudd, John Lithgow, Albert Brooks and Melissa McCarthy are completely fabulous).
But that heartfelt vibe is also what keeps his movies from being pure-bred Dumb Guy Movies. No matter, though. I had fun! I didn't get a headache! I laughed, and didn't cry!
1) Dumb Guy Movies do not give you a headache.
2) Your heart does not race when you watch Dumb Guy Movies.
3) Dumb Guy Movies don't make you queasy.
This Is 40 is the painful and funny story of a couple who are suddenly 40 and don't know what to make of their lives, together or individually. They've been married for years, have a couple of kids, unusual relationships with their own parents, and so forth.
As often happens in Judd Apatow movies, you veer uncomfortably between incredibly hilarious moments and truly heart-wrenching moments. It never goes to sappy, mostly because of the really amazing performances (Paul Rudd, John Lithgow, Albert Brooks and Melissa McCarthy are completely fabulous).
But that heartfelt vibe is also what keeps his movies from being pure-bred Dumb Guy Movies. No matter, though. I had fun! I didn't get a headache! I laughed, and didn't cry!
Saturday, December 29, 2012
Movie #10 - Argo
Sometimes when people recommend movies, I am skeptical. But then, if their recommendation complies with a ton of other recommendations, I start to assign it a little bit of gravitas.
We watch so few movies a year. Generally, we choose to assign our babysitting time to live events (concerts, plays, dinners with friends), and often we don't have the time / energy to watch an entire movie at home. But we had a stretch of time where the kids were with my mom, and we threw a bunch of it to movies.
We went to see Argo, a thriller (based on a true story) about the CIA evacuation of 6 of the US personnel who escaped from being hostages in 1979-80. I don't know (or, really care) what proportion of the movie is real or dramatized. I LOVED it. So well done, so well documented.
I'm reluctant to share my one quibble with it, given how well it was done. But I'll throw it out there.
The hero of the the actual event is Latino. Despite the otherwise meticulous attention to detail, Ben Affleck elected to replace the central character, Tony Mendez with a non-Latino actor - himself. I totally get that Affleck wanted to be the man in this amazing movie, and he did a lovely job IN the film. But after I watched the movie, I wished he'd cast it elsewhere. He's likely to win an Oscar (or maybe several). Did he need to jam himself in there?
HEY HEY ! LOOK! I WATCHED ANOTHER MOVIE!!
We watch so few movies a year. Generally, we choose to assign our babysitting time to live events (concerts, plays, dinners with friends), and often we don't have the time / energy to watch an entire movie at home. But we had a stretch of time where the kids were with my mom, and we threw a bunch of it to movies.
We went to see Argo, a thriller (based on a true story) about the CIA evacuation of 6 of the US personnel who escaped from being hostages in 1979-80. I don't know (or, really care) what proportion of the movie is real or dramatized. I LOVED it. So well done, so well documented.
I'm reluctant to share my one quibble with it, given how well it was done. But I'll throw it out there.
The hero of the the actual event is Latino. Despite the otherwise meticulous attention to detail, Ben Affleck elected to replace the central character, Tony Mendez with a non-Latino actor - himself. I totally get that Affleck wanted to be the man in this amazing movie, and he did a lovely job IN the film. But after I watched the movie, I wished he'd cast it elsewhere. He's likely to win an Oscar (or maybe several). Did he need to jam himself in there?
HEY HEY ! LOOK! I WATCHED ANOTHER MOVIE!!
Tuesday, December 25, 2012
On Goals - The 3rd Edition
At the start of the calendar year, I said (alleged? posited? threatened?) that I was going to read 40 books and watch 40 movies.
Now, it is December 25.
According to the www, that's about 359 days into a 365 day year.
Let's throw down the facts, as collected:
In those 359 days, I have:
read 35 books
watched 8 movies.
The uncollected, imagined statistics are:
In those 359 days, I have:
Now, it is December 25.
According to the www, that's about 359 days into a 365 day year.
Let's throw down the facts, as collected:
In those 359 days, I have:
read 35 books
watched 8 movies.
The uncollected, imagined statistics are:
In those 359 days, I have:
unloaded the dishwasher 280 times
read 195 picture books
done 42 craft projects that didn't result in something I could use, wear or hang up
washed 5,898,623,009,237,401,912 loads of laundry
packed 642 lunches
posted 1,097,865 facebook updates
run 330 miles
NOT run 200 miles
etc.
etc.
etc.
etc.
etc.
Which is all to say this:
I am nowhere NOWHERE nowhere close to reaching the goal I set last year, of reading 40 books, and watching 40 movies.
I'm okay with this!
Book #35 - Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
Maybe the most telling difference between novelists and film-makers is that a novelist is down with the title, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? and a film-maker thinks that Blade Runner is more the way to go.
But really, neither of those are true. The novelist rarely chooses the book title; the film-maker often has little input into the movie title.
Nonetheless, the differences between Blade Runner, the movie based on the novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, are many. I have only seen Blade Runner once, a zillion years ago. I remember rain, and Harrison Ford, and dim lighting.
I absolutely loved Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. I thought it was weird (but not in an offputting way) and interesting (but not in an "I'm saying interesting because what I mean is bad" way) and noir (in the best possible Raymond Chandler way) and sentimental (but not in a cornball way) and deep (but not in an inaccessible way).
The protagonist is a bounty hunter who's charged with tracking down androids. It's a post-apocalyptic Earth, where most humans have emigrated to Mars, and most living creatures are extinct. The few humans (and androids) left on Earth are faced with the inevitable degradation of the left-behind Earth. The novelist (Philip K. Dick) coined the term "kipple" to describe the infiltration of crap that comes with abandonment.
Loved it. Looking forward to reading more.
But really, neither of those are true. The novelist rarely chooses the book title; the film-maker often has little input into the movie title.
Nonetheless, the differences between Blade Runner, the movie based on the novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, are many. I have only seen Blade Runner once, a zillion years ago. I remember rain, and Harrison Ford, and dim lighting.
I absolutely loved Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. I thought it was weird (but not in an offputting way) and interesting (but not in an "I'm saying interesting because what I mean is bad" way) and noir (in the best possible Raymond Chandler way) and sentimental (but not in a cornball way) and deep (but not in an inaccessible way).
The protagonist is a bounty hunter who's charged with tracking down androids. It's a post-apocalyptic Earth, where most humans have emigrated to Mars, and most living creatures are extinct. The few humans (and androids) left on Earth are faced with the inevitable degradation of the left-behind Earth. The novelist (Philip K. Dick) coined the term "kipple" to describe the infiltration of crap that comes with abandonment.
Loved it. Looking forward to reading more.
Monday, December 3, 2012
Book #34 - The Book of Daniel
One of the most well-read people I know told me that her all-time favorite book is The Book of Daniel by E. L. Doctorow. Trusting her guidance, I downloaded the book on my Kindle.
I tried to read it four or five times, but each time, I got bogged down and my interest flagged, and I moved on to something easier. Recently, though, I've been sick in bed with the plague for (what seemed like) weeks at a time, and I realized what the problem was: The Book of Daniel is not a novel to enter into lightly; it's dense and insubstantial, chewy and elusive. You have to make a commitment to the Book of Daniel, and, as with most commitments, dedication pays off.
Daniel is the son of Paul and Rochelle Isaacson, who were charged with conspiracy to sell nuclear secrets to the Soviets in the 1940s. (It's based loosely on the trial of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, and though I gathered that it was related to that historical event, I really didn't care about how faithful or not it was to that story, because this novel itself was so gripping.) The novel swerves around in time - from the present, where Daniel is going to visit his sister in an insane asylum, to the near past - or is it the early future? - where Daniel is sitting in the library at Columbia trying to write his dissertation, to the far past, where his parents first met.
This was the most thoroughly well-written book I've read in years and years, and my feeble summation won't do it justice. If you need a review, there are smart reviews on Goodreads. Or, you can assume that my incredibly well-read friend has great taste in books, and go read it. Worked for me.
I tried to read it four or five times, but each time, I got bogged down and my interest flagged, and I moved on to something easier. Recently, though, I've been sick in bed with the plague for (what seemed like) weeks at a time, and I realized what the problem was: The Book of Daniel is not a novel to enter into lightly; it's dense and insubstantial, chewy and elusive. You have to make a commitment to the Book of Daniel, and, as with most commitments, dedication pays off.
Daniel is the son of Paul and Rochelle Isaacson, who were charged with conspiracy to sell nuclear secrets to the Soviets in the 1940s. (It's based loosely on the trial of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, and though I gathered that it was related to that historical event, I really didn't care about how faithful or not it was to that story, because this novel itself was so gripping.) The novel swerves around in time - from the present, where Daniel is going to visit his sister in an insane asylum, to the near past - or is it the early future? - where Daniel is sitting in the library at Columbia trying to write his dissertation, to the far past, where his parents first met.
This was the most thoroughly well-written book I've read in years and years, and my feeble summation won't do it justice. If you need a review, there are smart reviews on Goodreads. Or, you can assume that my incredibly well-read friend has great taste in books, and go read it. Worked for me.
Book #33 - The Spiderwick Chronicles
My best friend sent my daughter, a great reader, the first book in the Spiderwick Chronicles, and then, post facto said, "Mmm...maybe not for a first grader. You should read it first to test it out." So I read The Field Guide, the first in the Spiderwick Chronicles and was totally hooked.
I ran to the library to get the rest of the series (there are five in the first series, but there's a follow-on series called "Beyond the Spiderwick Chronicles" which I think I'll be checking out shortly), but only books 3-5 were available. I inhaled them. Today, weeks later, I finally got book 2 from the library, so I can close this series down.
Jared, his twin brother Simon, his older sister Mallory, and his newly-divorced mom have left the city and moved to Great-aunt Lucy's creepy and ramshackle house in the country. They've left partly to have a fresh start after the divorce, and partly because Jared has been getting into a lot of trouble in school. As soon as they arrive at Spiderwick estates, Jared senses there's something really weird going on, and before too long, he learns what it is: there are faerie creatures all over Spiderwick. The kids work together (though not always harmoniously) to deal with the brownies, boggarts, elves, hobgoblins, goblins, trolls, etc. and, as you might imagine, things turn out OK at the end.
Fun, bright, and interesting, but also a pretty true-to-heart representation of the emotional life of post-divorce kids. I loved the series!
(Because each book was about 60 pages including illustrations, I'm counting all five as one installment, even though it would take a huge whack at my forty-book goal if I didn't!!)
I ran to the library to get the rest of the series (there are five in the first series, but there's a follow-on series called "Beyond the Spiderwick Chronicles" which I think I'll be checking out shortly), but only books 3-5 were available. I inhaled them. Today, weeks later, I finally got book 2 from the library, so I can close this series down.
Jared, his twin brother Simon, his older sister Mallory, and his newly-divorced mom have left the city and moved to Great-aunt Lucy's creepy and ramshackle house in the country. They've left partly to have a fresh start after the divorce, and partly because Jared has been getting into a lot of trouble in school. As soon as they arrive at Spiderwick estates, Jared senses there's something really weird going on, and before too long, he learns what it is: there are faerie creatures all over Spiderwick. The kids work together (though not always harmoniously) to deal with the brownies, boggarts, elves, hobgoblins, goblins, trolls, etc. and, as you might imagine, things turn out OK at the end.
Fun, bright, and interesting, but also a pretty true-to-heart representation of the emotional life of post-divorce kids. I loved the series!
(Because each book was about 60 pages including illustrations, I'm counting all five as one installment, even though it would take a huge whack at my forty-book goal if I didn't!!)
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Book #32 - REVISIT - Just Kids
Just Kids is Patti Smith's memoir about her early adulthood, and particularly, her relationship with Robert Mapplethorpe.
I really didn't like it.
I thought I would.
I should have liked it. Art! Punk Rock! Theatre! What's not to like?
The narrative read as an emotionless chronicle of (what should have been?) a passionate time and series of experiences. Smith relentlessly catalogs the personalities she encountered (lists of 5-10 names were common):
"Through [Bobby Neuwirth] I had met Todd [Rundgren], the artist Bruce Marden and Larry Poons, and the musicians Billy Swann, Tom Paxton, Eric Andersen, Roger McGuinn, and Kris Kristofferson."
I know that for some, that list could read like a series of explosions. "You met who!? When!? All at once??!" To me, it looked like name dropping, and not in service of the narrative. I found Smith's writing, when it wasn't downright awkward ("It was within that atmosphere that I seethed.") then uncomfortably remote and passionless (as when she explains her numerous breakups, including with Mapplethorpe).
My favorite college professor (and, lucky for me, my current book group compatriot) talks about (possibly invented the term???) the Apostolary Narrative. It's meant to be a play on the Epistolary Narrative (books through letters), and it describes the kind of book where the Apostles get to tell the story, and the story isn't theirs. The New Testament, obviously, is one. The Great Gatsby is one (Nick is the Apostle, Jay Gatsby gets to be the Christ). I'd throw Brideshead Revisited and My AntonÃa into the mix. Hopefully my prof will weigh in with a better list.
When I got to the end of Just Kids, and read the epilogue explaining that Smith was responding to Mapplethorpe's dying request that she "tell their story," I realized that was the problem. The book was posing as an apostolary narrative, but was actually written as a memoir, and so succeeded at neither.
I really didn't like it.
I thought I would.
I should have liked it. Art! Punk Rock! Theatre! What's not to like?
The narrative read as an emotionless chronicle of (what should have been?) a passionate time and series of experiences. Smith relentlessly catalogs the personalities she encountered (lists of 5-10 names were common):
"Through [Bobby Neuwirth] I had met Todd [Rundgren], the artist Bruce Marden and Larry Poons, and the musicians Billy Swann, Tom Paxton, Eric Andersen, Roger McGuinn, and Kris Kristofferson."
I know that for some, that list could read like a series of explosions. "You met who!? When!? All at once??!" To me, it looked like name dropping, and not in service of the narrative. I found Smith's writing, when it wasn't downright awkward ("It was within that atmosphere that I seethed.") then uncomfortably remote and passionless (as when she explains her numerous breakups, including with Mapplethorpe).
My favorite college professor (and, lucky for me, my current book group compatriot) talks about (possibly invented the term???) the Apostolary Narrative. It's meant to be a play on the Epistolary Narrative (books through letters), and it describes the kind of book where the Apostles get to tell the story, and the story isn't theirs. The New Testament, obviously, is one. The Great Gatsby is one (Nick is the Apostle, Jay Gatsby gets to be the Christ). I'd throw Brideshead Revisited and My AntonÃa into the mix. Hopefully my prof will weigh in with a better list.
When I got to the end of Just Kids, and read the epilogue explaining that Smith was responding to Mapplethorpe's dying request that she "tell their story," I realized that was the problem. The book was posing as an apostolary narrative, but was actually written as a memoir, and so succeeded at neither.
Sunday, November 18, 2012
Book #32 - Just Kids
For my book group, we read Patti Smith's memoir, Just Kids.
I really did NOT like it, much to my surprise. I'm going to wait to post a real review until after book group, but this is the record showing that I read another book!
I really did NOT like it, much to my surprise. I'm going to wait to post a real review until after book group, but this is the record showing that I read another book!
Thursday, November 15, 2012
Books #29-31 - a very lame post
I have been reading, but have not been writing about what I've read. If I don't get something down here, I will be permanently mired in the It-Will-Take-Too-Long-So-Why-Bother swamp. So this is lame, but hopefully it means I can approach book #32 freshly.
Book #29 -One Last Thing Before I Go by Jonathan Tropper. Loved the book. Wish I had bought a paper version instead of a Kindle version so that I could loan it out.
Book #30 - Shadow of Night by Deborah Harkness. Second in the All Souls trilogy (the first was A Discovery of Witches). Total slog for me. Uninspired to read the third in the series, whenever it comes out.
Book #31 - The Litigators by John Grisham. It's been a zillion years since I read a Grisham lawyer book. How does he do it? How does he come up with all these iterations of the same story, and keep making them eminently readable?
OK. Caught up.
Also, I'm noticing that it's the middle of November, which means ~6 weeks left of the year, and I have nine books to read if I'm going to get to 40. Hmmm. Fascinating.
Book #29 -One Last Thing Before I Go by Jonathan Tropper. Loved the book. Wish I had bought a paper version instead of a Kindle version so that I could loan it out.
Book #30 - Shadow of Night by Deborah Harkness. Second in the All Souls trilogy (the first was A Discovery of Witches). Total slog for me. Uninspired to read the third in the series, whenever it comes out.
Book #31 - The Litigators by John Grisham. It's been a zillion years since I read a Grisham lawyer book. How does he do it? How does he come up with all these iterations of the same story, and keep making them eminently readable?
OK. Caught up.
Also, I'm noticing that it's the middle of November, which means ~6 weeks left of the year, and I have nine books to read if I'm going to get to 40. Hmmm. Fascinating.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Book #28 - Wee Free Men
My sister & nephew, both avid readers with good taste, recommended I read The Wee Free Men by Terry Pratchett, so I got it right away.
The wee free men, it turns out, are tiny blue guys with lots of tattoos and a thick Scottish dialect, and they're known as "pictsies" (and they get really angry if you mistake them for "pixies"). The protagonist is a 9-year-old girl named Tiffany who wants to become a witch, but worries that her name might interfere with her success.
The novel is a bright and funny fantasy / adventure story, with great characters and dialogue, and good depictions of girls & women. (So nice to find that!)
I found myself wishing, though, that I'd listened to the book instead of read it. Long ago, I listened to Anansi Boys by Neil Gaiman, read by Lenny Henry, and it was the best book recording ever. [And I'm including Jim Dale's recording of the Harry Potter books in that calculus!] I attribute my enjoyment of Anansi Boys ~35% to the great writing and ~65% to the amazing performance. Hearing it read—and read so well—decreased my general discomfort with the genre, and increased my attention in the passages I would have skimmed with my eyes.
So though I very much enjoyed Wee Free Men, I still think I might try to track down an audio version of it. I think I would like it better with my ears.
The wee free men, it turns out, are tiny blue guys with lots of tattoos and a thick Scottish dialect, and they're known as "pictsies" (and they get really angry if you mistake them for "pixies"). The protagonist is a 9-year-old girl named Tiffany who wants to become a witch, but worries that her name might interfere with her success.
The novel is a bright and funny fantasy / adventure story, with great characters and dialogue, and good depictions of girls & women. (So nice to find that!)
I found myself wishing, though, that I'd listened to the book instead of read it. Long ago, I listened to Anansi Boys by Neil Gaiman, read by Lenny Henry, and it was the best book recording ever. [And I'm including Jim Dale's recording of the Harry Potter books in that calculus!] I attribute my enjoyment of Anansi Boys ~35% to the great writing and ~65% to the amazing performance. Hearing it read—and read so well—decreased my general discomfort with the genre, and increased my attention in the passages I would have skimmed with my eyes.
So though I very much enjoyed Wee Free Men, I still think I might try to track down an audio version of it. I think I would like it better with my ears.
Friday, October 5, 2012
Book #27 - Brideshead Revisited
In the rules of this (wholly arbitrary, self-inflicted) challenge, I am supposed to only "count" New To Me books/movies. In deference to that, I have not posted every time I watched Fletch. I also abstained from book group in June because they were reading ONE HUNDRED YEARS OF SOLITUDE, which I read years ago.
But then, I started to get that yearning that I get when it's been too long since I've read BRIDESHEAD REVISITED. It's as though I haven't heard from someone I love in a long time, that kind of loneliness and melancholy.
For years, whenever someone asked "What is your favorite book?" I answered "The House of Mirth." And I had a ready explanation of what I loved about Lily Bart and her tragic descent and the loveliness and pain of Wharton's depiction of the era.
But somewhere along the line, 10 or 15 years ago, I realized that I hadn't read HOM for years. And then I realized I was reading BRIDESHEAD REVISITED annually.
I keep revisiting (apologies) the novel because I can't stop thinking about the people in it. (They don't even feel like characters to me, just people.) Moments and scenes and quotations stick in my head as though I'd lived them, not read them. And every time I read it, I am taken anew by some element or line or scene, as though it was completely new to me.
Maybe this is what scholars do? Inhabit a text completely; consume it and commune with it so that they can own it? I can, through the narrow opening provided by this small novel of Evelyn Waugh (and my experience of it) see clearly how and why that would appeal. I would want to be an academic if I got to dissect BRIDESHEAD.
So this is my explanation of why, despite the fact that it's not an unread book, I am counting this rereading of BRIDESHEAD REVISITED towards my goal.
Have you read it? I'd be happy to read it again, and talk about it with you.
But then, I started to get that yearning that I get when it's been too long since I've read BRIDESHEAD REVISITED. It's as though I haven't heard from someone I love in a long time, that kind of loneliness and melancholy.
For years, whenever someone asked "What is your favorite book?" I answered "The House of Mirth." And I had a ready explanation of what I loved about Lily Bart and her tragic descent and the loveliness and pain of Wharton's depiction of the era.
But somewhere along the line, 10 or 15 years ago, I realized that I hadn't read HOM for years. And then I realized I was reading BRIDESHEAD REVISITED annually.
I keep revisiting (apologies) the novel because I can't stop thinking about the people in it. (They don't even feel like characters to me, just people.) Moments and scenes and quotations stick in my head as though I'd lived them, not read them. And every time I read it, I am taken anew by some element or line or scene, as though it was completely new to me.
Maybe this is what scholars do? Inhabit a text completely; consume it and commune with it so that they can own it? I can, through the narrow opening provided by this small novel of Evelyn Waugh (and my experience of it) see clearly how and why that would appeal. I would want to be an academic if I got to dissect BRIDESHEAD.
So this is my explanation of why, despite the fact that it's not an unread book, I am counting this rereading of BRIDESHEAD REVISITED towards my goal.
Have you read it? I'd be happy to read it again, and talk about it with you.
Sunday, September 30, 2012
Book #26 - Mary Ann in Autumn
When I was a first year in college, a friend hooked me up with the novel The Tales of the City by Armistead Maupin. Set in the 70's in San Francisco, the novel reads in a flash, in part because it's so delicious, and in part because it was originally published as short weekly columns in the San Francsico Chronicle (so each chapter was a little bite-sized nugget of story with iconic characters in crazy situations).
A whole bunch of us were hooked on the novels: passing them around like a candy dish, gasping over the more shocking turns of event, and then rereading the whole series again. (In between games of Tetris and, oh yeah, actual school work.)
Then, in 2008, wonder of wonders, another novel in the series was introduced! It was such a delight to get to check in with these belovedfriends characters, from whom we hadn't heard in so long.
Now, in the age of Facebook, guess what?! You can be a fan of awesome authors, including Armistead Maupin, on Facebook. It's nice to be able tostalk follow these fantastic writers, and it comes with unexpected benefits like this: One day, Armistead Maupin posted on his FB page that you could buy one of his novels right from him, and he would sign it for you!
And because of that, I learned that somehow, I had missed the publication of the newest novel in the Tales series: Mary Ann in Autumn. As with all of the others, it was warm, funny, and thoroughly enjoyable.
Tales devotees: I will loan you my copy, but you have to promise to return it. My friend Armistead sent it just for me.
A whole bunch of us were hooked on the novels: passing them around like a candy dish, gasping over the more shocking turns of event, and then rereading the whole series again. (In between games of Tetris and, oh yeah, actual school work.)
Then, in 2008, wonder of wonders, another novel in the series was introduced! It was such a delight to get to check in with these beloved
Now, in the age of Facebook, guess what?! You can be a fan of awesome authors, including Armistead Maupin, on Facebook. It's nice to be able to
And because of that, I learned that somehow, I had missed the publication of the newest novel in the Tales series: Mary Ann in Autumn. As with all of the others, it was warm, funny, and thoroughly enjoyable.
Tales devotees: I will loan you my copy, but you have to promise to return it. My friend Armistead sent it just for me.
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Movie #8 - BRIDESMAIDS!!
I have been absolutely dying to see Bridesmaids for ages..since it came out, basically. But we don't get to the movies much these days; I think we see 2-3 movies in the theatre per year. We could say that it's because we have kids, but we get out to do other things (go out to supper with friends, go to live theatre or music shows, go for runs, etc.). I think it's that I (I have to stop speaking for both of us!!) don't care enough about movies any more to make them a priority.
When I lived in Los Angeles, I went to the movies all the time. I had friends who worked in The Industry, and I had a friend who managed a movie theatre; combined that meant that I could (despite my remarkably low income) see a lot of movies. My friends and I started a "Film Forum," kind of like a book group for movies, where we'd get together to watch Important Movies and then discuss them.
I was working at a film production company when I first read the script of Saving Private Ryan, and it was the most amazing screenplay I had ever read. (And by then, I had read scores, if not hundreds of screenplays.) So I was quite excited when the film came out, especially given the amazing cast that had been pulled together for it. I went to see the movie with a wonderful friend, but we arrived a little late, and it was opening weekend, and we were at a very popular theatre, and it was PACKED. We couldn't find two seats together, and I ended up sitting in the very front row, sort of slumped down in my seat and cracking my neck to look up at the screen.
Have you ever seen the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan? Imagine seeing it that close, forty feet high, with state of the art surround sound. It was the most intensely uncomfortable movie experience of my life.
This is all a long way of trying to explain how I rationalize my deep fondness for the genre of films I like to call "Dumb Guy Movies." Dumb Guy Movies don't give you a headache when you watch them. Dumb Guy Movies don't make you weep uncontrollably. Dumb Guy Movies make you laugh, and often have a very sweet / heart-warming element.
BUT! Dumb Guy Movies can also be super racist & sexist & inappropriate (while still being, to my juvenile mind, pretty freaking funny).
So how awesome that women are embracing, nay, entering the field of Dumb Guy Movies! Bridesmaids fit the form (or is it a formula? Or both?): friend conflict, wacky batch of friends to help you learn something good about yourself, huge number of jokes about bodily fluids, etc.
I didn't laugh my ass off at Bridesmaids, but I did like it. And, to be honest, part of the reason I love the others in the genre is that they get better with rewatching. So I will add Bridesmaids to the list of "Always Stop and Watch" when it's on (but only on cable).
When I lived in Los Angeles, I went to the movies all the time. I had friends who worked in The Industry, and I had a friend who managed a movie theatre; combined that meant that I could (despite my remarkably low income) see a lot of movies. My friends and I started a "Film Forum," kind of like a book group for movies, where we'd get together to watch Important Movies and then discuss them.
I was working at a film production company when I first read the script of Saving Private Ryan, and it was the most amazing screenplay I had ever read. (And by then, I had read scores, if not hundreds of screenplays.) So I was quite excited when the film came out, especially given the amazing cast that had been pulled together for it. I went to see the movie with a wonderful friend, but we arrived a little late, and it was opening weekend, and we were at a very popular theatre, and it was PACKED. We couldn't find two seats together, and I ended up sitting in the very front row, sort of slumped down in my seat and cracking my neck to look up at the screen.
Have you ever seen the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan? Imagine seeing it that close, forty feet high, with state of the art surround sound. It was the most intensely uncomfortable movie experience of my life.
This is all a long way of trying to explain how I rationalize my deep fondness for the genre of films I like to call "Dumb Guy Movies." Dumb Guy Movies don't give you a headache when you watch them. Dumb Guy Movies don't make you weep uncontrollably. Dumb Guy Movies make you laugh, and often have a very sweet / heart-warming element.
BUT! Dumb Guy Movies can also be super racist & sexist & inappropriate (while still being, to my juvenile mind, pretty freaking funny).
So how awesome that women are embracing, nay, entering the field of Dumb Guy Movies! Bridesmaids fit the form (or is it a formula? Or both?): friend conflict, wacky batch of friends to help you learn something good about yourself, huge number of jokes about bodily fluids, etc.
I didn't laugh my ass off at Bridesmaids, but I did like it. And, to be honest, part of the reason I love the others in the genre is that they get better with rewatching. So I will add Bridesmaids to the list of "Always Stop and Watch" when it's on (but only on cable).
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Book #25 - The Tragedy of Arthur
My aunt and uncle (which really means "my dad's cousin and her husband" and has no direct translation in English) are avid readers and awesome book buyers. They're the ones who gave me The People of the Book, which I read earlier this year (and very much enjoyed). For my FORTIETH (ahem) birthday this year, they gave me Arthur Phillips newest, The Tragedy of Arthur.
The premise of the book is that Arthur Phillips (the author, and a novelist of some repute) is in a bit of a crisis. His father, a notorious and convicted con-man, has handed him a previously undiscovered Shakespeare play about Arthur, King of the Britons.
And now, I'm at a point I imagine reviewers / bloggers / opinionaters of all stripes encounter: do you reveal significant plot points so that you can discuss the meat of it? Or do you keep them mum, only saying "yay!' or "NAY!" so that you are only serving as a crossroads?
I am going to assume that most of my readers -- all 3 of you -- are either more well-read than I (meaning you've already read this) or are more sophisticated readers (meaning that you can read something for the enjoyment of it, regardless of plot points). So I'm going to go into my reaction more specifically, at risk of ruining some surprises. [your chance to opt out, if you're dying to maintain the surprise of this novel!]
On purpose, when I was reading this book (okay, I'll say it, this NOVEL!), I didn't do any google or wikipedia research. It's written very autobiographically, as though A.P. has a twin sister, and a con-artist dad, and a discontented wife in Prague, etc. etc. And I didn't want to know truth from fiction.
For most of it.
The last 1/6 of the book is the text of the "Shakespeare" play, The Tragedy of Arthur. And suddenly, I didn't care if it was real or imagined or fabricated or discovered. I just knew I didn't want to read it. Man, I tried. I really did. But after about 10ish pages of Shakespearish language, I knew I had to set it aside if I ever had any hope of moving on to the next book.
Perhaps this is evidence that the play "discovered" by Phillip's father is genuinely Shakespeare! I think it's just bolstering the case that I'm something of a Philistine.
The premise of the book is that Arthur Phillips (the author, and a novelist of some repute) is in a bit of a crisis. His father, a notorious and convicted con-man, has handed him a previously undiscovered Shakespeare play about Arthur, King of the Britons.
And now, I'm at a point I imagine reviewers / bloggers / opinionaters of all stripes encounter: do you reveal significant plot points so that you can discuss the meat of it? Or do you keep them mum, only saying "yay!' or "NAY!" so that you are only serving as a crossroads?
I am going to assume that most of my readers -- all 3 of you -- are either more well-read than I (meaning you've already read this) or are more sophisticated readers (meaning that you can read something for the enjoyment of it, regardless of plot points). So I'm going to go into my reaction more specifically, at risk of ruining some surprises. [your chance to opt out, if you're dying to maintain the surprise of this novel!]
On purpose, when I was reading this book (okay, I'll say it, this NOVEL!), I didn't do any google or wikipedia research. It's written very autobiographically, as though A.P. has a twin sister, and a con-artist dad, and a discontented wife in Prague, etc. etc. And I didn't want to know truth from fiction.
For most of it.
The last 1/6 of the book is the text of the "Shakespeare" play, The Tragedy of Arthur. And suddenly, I didn't care if it was real or imagined or fabricated or discovered. I just knew I didn't want to read it. Man, I tried. I really did. But after about 10ish pages of Shakespearish language, I knew I had to set it aside if I ever had any hope of moving on to the next book.
Perhaps this is evidence that the play "discovered" by Phillip's father is genuinely Shakespeare! I think it's just bolstering the case that I'm something of a Philistine.
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Book #24 - Stone Arabia
My wonderful and eclectic book group selected Dana Spiotta's novel, Stone Arabia to read this month. It drew comparisons to an earlier book we read, A Visit from the Goon Squad, and it reminded me of Jonathan Lethem's novels The Fortress of Solitude and You Don't Love Me Yet. Contemporary Rock Novels -- is this a new genre? Has music changed and shaped our dialogue and experience so much that now that it's its own thing?
The thing about rock shaping literature is this: I don't know enough about music to ever be the right kind of reader for these novels. I know what I like in music, but what I like is purely aesthetic, and doesn't have to do with (necessarily) excellence, genius, innovation, etc. I feel the same way about food, sometimes. I read what people write about food, and I really think that their senses are more well developed than mine. I know if I think something is yummy or yucky, and it's not often I can get a whole lot more descriptive than that.
But does that matter? Do you have to really understand a subject to appreciate it in a novel? Are we -- the less sophisticated, less nuanced, less knowledgeable readers doomed to diminished enjoyment? If an author writing on the intricacies of early-80's American/British rock can inspire emotional response in me, does it matter if I only understand the broad strokes ("Hey! She said David Bowie! I know him!") and not the subtleties ("Wait, is that band real or fictional?")?
For the moment, I will continue appreciating what I learn about music from novels, and enjoy the oblivion of never really knowing what's real or not.
The thing about rock shaping literature is this: I don't know enough about music to ever be the right kind of reader for these novels. I know what I like in music, but what I like is purely aesthetic, and doesn't have to do with (necessarily) excellence, genius, innovation, etc. I feel the same way about food, sometimes. I read what people write about food, and I really think that their senses are more well developed than mine. I know if I think something is yummy or yucky, and it's not often I can get a whole lot more descriptive than that.
But does that matter? Do you have to really understand a subject to appreciate it in a novel? Are we -- the less sophisticated, less nuanced, less knowledgeable readers doomed to diminished enjoyment? If an author writing on the intricacies of early-80's American/British rock can inspire emotional response in me, does it matter if I only understand the broad strokes ("Hey! She said David Bowie! I know him!") and not the subtleties ("Wait, is that band real or fictional?")?
For the moment, I will continue appreciating what I learn about music from novels, and enjoy the oblivion of never really knowing what's real or not.
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Movie #7 - Into The Night
I have several days home alone, and so thought I should capitalize on this time to clean the house & watch movies. I am still dying to see Bridesmaids, but for a person who's kind of movie inept (no Netflix, never used Redbox, late to the game on a library reservation, etc..) it wasn't easy for me to track it down today. So I decided, instead, I would just choose something free from On Demand.
I ended up choosing 1985's Into The Night. The real reason I chose it was because my best friend has a lifelong, eternal crush on Jeff Goldblum, and he stars.
In other posts, I try to do a lot of hyperlinking, to get people to actual, relevant source material -- or at least to material of people more knowledgeable than I am. This one, I'm trying to keep it to a minimum, because I have thoughts & reactions to this weird little movie, and would like to write them and THEN research.
The premise of the movie is that Jeff Goldblum's character has chronic insomnia, and it's causing a number of problems. Through a series of misadventures, he meets Michelle Pfeiffer's character, and rescues her from being killed by a variety of bad guys. [Spoiler: It has a happy ending for the two actors I've mentioned, but not for tons of others..]
It was funny to watch this movie I'd never heard of that was so totally representing a time in the USA in my youth. Complete with big shoulderpads, feathered hair, synthesizer soundtracks and inappropriate stereotypes, it was awkward in the way many movies from the mid-80's are.
But it also had these clever filmic moments that I really admired! There's a scene where Goldblum is trying to find Pfeiffer in a big fancy apartment/suite thing, and as he creeps from room to room, the TV is on in every room, and what's being shown is a retro black&white Scary Movie, so that the soundtrack from the Scary Movie becomes the soundtrack of Goldblum's search.
There were other interesting moments / montages / constructs. I wonder -- do all mediocre movies have these, and I rarely notice them? Do I ascribe interesting things to this film because of the nascent star power put into it (John Landis, Michelle Pfeiffer, Jeff Goldblum)? And really, most of all. who in the hell do you have to be to get Dan Aykroyd, Jim Henson and David Bowie to cameo in your film????
I ended up choosing 1985's Into The Night. The real reason I chose it was because my best friend has a lifelong, eternal crush on Jeff Goldblum, and he stars.
In other posts, I try to do a lot of hyperlinking, to get people to actual, relevant source material -- or at least to material of people more knowledgeable than I am. This one, I'm trying to keep it to a minimum, because I have thoughts & reactions to this weird little movie, and would like to write them and THEN research.
The premise of the movie is that Jeff Goldblum's character has chronic insomnia, and it's causing a number of problems. Through a series of misadventures, he meets Michelle Pfeiffer's character, and rescues her from being killed by a variety of bad guys. [Spoiler: It has a happy ending for the two actors I've mentioned, but not for tons of others..]
It was funny to watch this movie I'd never heard of that was so totally representing a time in the USA in my youth. Complete with big shoulderpads, feathered hair, synthesizer soundtracks and inappropriate stereotypes, it was awkward in the way many movies from the mid-80's are.
But it also had these clever filmic moments that I really admired! There's a scene where Goldblum is trying to find Pfeiffer in a big fancy apartment/suite thing, and as he creeps from room to room, the TV is on in every room, and what's being shown is a retro black&white Scary Movie, so that the soundtrack from the Scary Movie becomes the soundtrack of Goldblum's search.
There were other interesting moments / montages / constructs. I wonder -- do all mediocre movies have these, and I rarely notice them? Do I ascribe interesting things to this film because of the nascent star power put into it (John Landis, Michelle Pfeiffer, Jeff Goldblum)? And really, most of all. who in the hell do you have to be to get Dan Aykroyd, Jim Henson and David Bowie to cameo in your film????
Sunday, August 19, 2012
Movie #6 - Ted
YAY! A movie in a movie theatre! A FIRST-RUN movie! A FUNNY movie! Starring super-cute Marky Mark. Written & directed (and starring, as the bear) by the super-inappropriate, super-raunchy, super-sophomoric, always brilliant Seth MacFarlane.
Not as good as an episode of The Family Guy, but still super fun.
Yay! A dumb comedy, IN THE THEATRE!!!
Not as good as an episode of The Family Guy, but still super fun.
Yay! A dumb comedy, IN THE THEATRE!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)