This Sunday, for the first time in months, my brother John and I went to the Half-Price Books in San Marcos. That has been our usual stomping grounds for years. Many is the time we spent a few hours combing the shelves. The book store was much changed, with fewer shelves spread out to give space and the chairs where people could rest from their browsing removed. Although the pickings seemed slimmer, I did manage to find some good things.
A mini-series based on the life of my favorite Founding Father ever since I watched the movie "1776". The life of that thorny, businesslike, principled man was of course more complicated than any musical could express, and "John Adams" goes a far way to exploring it in more depth. Paul Giamatti is perhaps one of our best actors and his portrayal of Adams as a common man negotiating his way around such men as Washington, Franklin, and Jefferson, not to mention the kings of France and Great Britain, as he tries to help establish a country ruled not by great men or by mobs, but by law. It doesn't hurt (for me) that when he is on his farm in his vest and with a stick in his hand, he strongly resembles a hobbit!
O Brother, Where Art Thou?
For years I resisted watching this movie, then finally saw it and wondered why I had. I suppose it was because I had an unreasonable aversion to George Clooney. Anyway, I found it to be a mythical, mystical, musical adventure as three fugitives make their way through the seedily visionary landscape of 1930's America, recapitulaing (in a sense) the homeward voyage of Ulysses. I always miss parts of it when it comes on TV, so I'm glad to finally have a copy I can watch any time.
How I explained this book to my brother: "[Peter] Ackroyd is a beautiful "cherry-picker" when it comes to biographical detail, by which I mean you don't get all the bugs and stems and unripe fruit in his basket that might clutter a more overly-enthusiastic biographer's work. He doesn't undersell Charlie's accomplishments but there is little hero-worship or excuses, especially when it comes to his private life. I hope that doesn't make it sound like a slash job; it isn't. Ackroyd presents facts and statements without interpretation, mostly."
I've been seeing this book (or one like it) for over forty years, and I seem to have finally found my way into it at last. I anticipate at least a solid week of reading through the stories, then who knows how many decades digesting them.
I read a good lump of "The Ickabog" when it was being published chapter by chapter online. I found it techically fascinating, rather than engaging as a story. Here Rowling was dealing with a pure fantasy or fairy tale for the first time (if you don't count the in-world "Tales of Beedle the Bard"), as opposed to the somewhat 'urban fantasy' of the Harry Potter books. An imaginary land and a 'once upon a time' period do not really seem to be her cup of tea; in fact it reminded me of Stephen King's unsatisfactory foray into pure fantasy, "The Eyes of the Dragon". I think her writing is too blatantly psychological, sociological, and allegorical for the form of Fantasy she is using. And allowing her young readers to illustrate the volume seems a bit 'twee' to me and something of a lazy affection grab. I suppose I bought this book more as an artifact than as a promising read.
No comments:
Post a Comment