Why did I read this book? Mostly because I love Richard E. Grant. The connection may not be immediately obvious, so I'll just mention that he played Hugo in the film that was made ( I believe) in the 80s. I picked up a cheap copy of the book somewhere, and decided to check it out.
It was good, but slightly disappointing. After all of the vague things you hear about Anais Nin, I, at least, was expecting something slightly dirtier than what Henry and June delivered. That being said, I really enjoyed reading the work of a woman who was comfortable with her sexuality, and had no problem with following her own desires to their unconventional, but logical conclusion. I know enough about history and women's studies to see that her attitude was rare and shocking for the times, and was generally something seen more in men. In addition she embraces this idea, explores it, and never loses her femininity. She refuses to believe that her strong urges and curiosity about women made her masculine in any way.
I know its a journal, but a lack of plot tends to bother me, so it had that working against it, but I admired Anais Nin for the way she lived her life on her terms. I also admired the men in her life for accepting her the way she was.
I can't really tell what she learned or how it all ended, seeing as it was only a year of her diary, but I think it will be a while before I even think about taking on the rest of them. Still, it was nice to break up the Amor Vinicit Omnia mentality of the Outlander novels with the musings of a woman who believed in love but was interested primarily in sex.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
1. 10/7/09 The Fiery Cross by Diana Gabaldon (976 pages)
So my first thoughts, in my first entry for this year were mostly about how disappointed I was in myself for year two. FORTY books less than year one? What the hell? I then proceeded to blame Diana Gabaldon for this. I don't know that it was her fault, and even if it was it certainly wasn't very sportsmanlike of me to mention it. I did, however, spend two months (+) rereading her Outlander series in preparation for the release of book 7. That took up a huge amont of time and I STILL wasn't ready when the book came out. This is where the pages counts come it.
Then I moved on to what I actually read.
I really enjoy the way Diana Gabaldon writes, and I have always devoured her books as quickly as I was able. This one was no different, but I remember being vaguely disappointed the first time. Now that I've read it three or four times, I would say that its grown on me. That being said, I think the editing could be quite a bit tighter. She starts by describing- in extreme detail- one day. This goes on for more than 100 pages. There's nothing there that I hate, or definitely think should be gone, but I'm not an editor, am I? I like long books, and I'm no enemy of detail, but that is a looong day.
I also think that the whole book feels like a placeholder between the action, and after having read 976 pages, its startling to realize that if there was an overarching plot, I missed it. I feel this every time I read it.
I do, however, have a strong love and appreciation of Diana Gabaldon's style, and after I'd read the book a couple of times, I decided that if I look at it as a story about Jamie and Roger, rather and one about Jamie and Claire, it gelled better for me. I like to think about it as a sub-genre of Epic Bromance, starting with everyone being bothered that Roger is presbyterian and ending with he and Jamie hainvg Special Vengeance Trips together, I may have interpreted an overarching plot for myself.
It will never be my favorite Outlander novel, but there are some great bits in there, and I really love the last line. But why, oh, why does she continuously need to torture her fabulous main characters in such creatively monstrous ways (a la Roland Emmerich)?
Then I moved on to what I actually read.
I really enjoy the way Diana Gabaldon writes, and I have always devoured her books as quickly as I was able. This one was no different, but I remember being vaguely disappointed the first time. Now that I've read it three or four times, I would say that its grown on me. That being said, I think the editing could be quite a bit tighter. She starts by describing- in extreme detail- one day. This goes on for more than 100 pages. There's nothing there that I hate, or definitely think should be gone, but I'm not an editor, am I? I like long books, and I'm no enemy of detail, but that is a looong day.
I also think that the whole book feels like a placeholder between the action, and after having read 976 pages, its startling to realize that if there was an overarching plot, I missed it. I feel this every time I read it.
I do, however, have a strong love and appreciation of Diana Gabaldon's style, and after I'd read the book a couple of times, I decided that if I look at it as a story about Jamie and Roger, rather and one about Jamie and Claire, it gelled better for me. I like to think about it as a sub-genre of Epic Bromance, starting with everyone being bothered that Roger is presbyterian and ending with he and Jamie hainvg Special Vengeance Trips together, I may have interpreted an overarching plot for myself.
It will never be my favorite Outlander novel, but there are some great bits in there, and I really love the last line. But why, oh, why does she continuously need to torture her fabulous main characters in such creatively monstrous ways (a la Roland Emmerich)?
A Bit More Information
So, here's how it works: I spend a year recording the number of books I've read so far, the title of the book, the author, the date I finished it, and my personal review. New this year I've decided to keep track of page counts, as lengthy tomes occassionally skew my totals. Make sense? If not, I'll try to work on it. There may be some kinks trying to translate my immediate reactions in a journal into coherent thoughts on the internet, so bear with me...
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Cake
I don't really like cake. Does that make me a bad person? Katherine T loves it as the alpha and the omega. I usually only eat it to be polite. It always seems like you can't really say no to someone's birthday cake without slighting their birthday, so then I say "ok, just a little piece," and then I have a bite and remember that cake doesn't taste very good, but I'm stuck with it. Its a vicious and unending cycle of madness. Unless its cheesecake, then its a whole different ballgame, because cheesecake tastes like happiness. Or at least a really good day.
Cake as a metaphor, however, works really well for me. I have to thank Katherine T for this one too. When Anna was explaining the plot of Twilight to her, Katherine T chose to interpret Bella as Edward's cake. His favorite thing to eat. Then she said "I couldn't date CAKE. How does he do it?"
I don't really believe in soulmates per se. Honestly, if I did it would be more depressing cause then you start thinking "where is he? maybe its just me. Maybe I don't get one..." But realistically, I've never seen anything that leads me to believe in soulmates. I do believe that you can have something like it, just with a little more compatability and a litte less Destiny (and I mean the concept here, not that kid who used to knock on our door and ask for money, although less of her has definitely been a blessing). The gist of all of this is that I believe in cake as a metaphor. Your favorite food that you love so much you can keep from eating it. I'm not sure I've explained this concept coherently, but that may have something to do with being extra tired and punchy this week. For those of you who already know what I'm talking about, sorry I butchered the theory. For those of you who don't, sorry if this doesn't make any sense. Katherine T, I have subtly disguised your name so that you won't feel exposed to the paparazzi. Thank you for your patience.
This all really came about because someone at work had birthday cake today, and I said yes to be kind, and then remembered that I don't care for cake...and then my internet was working, and the next thing you know I'm recording my delusional ramblings for posterity. Someday I'll write a coherent entry for this, I swear.
Cake as a metaphor, however, works really well for me. I have to thank Katherine T for this one too. When Anna was explaining the plot of Twilight to her, Katherine T chose to interpret Bella as Edward's cake. His favorite thing to eat. Then she said "I couldn't date CAKE. How does he do it?"
I don't really believe in soulmates per se. Honestly, if I did it would be more depressing cause then you start thinking "where is he? maybe its just me. Maybe I don't get one..." But realistically, I've never seen anything that leads me to believe in soulmates. I do believe that you can have something like it, just with a little more compatability and a litte less Destiny (and I mean the concept here, not that kid who used to knock on our door and ask for money, although less of her has definitely been a blessing). The gist of all of this is that I believe in cake as a metaphor. Your favorite food that you love so much you can keep from eating it. I'm not sure I've explained this concept coherently, but that may have something to do with being extra tired and punchy this week. For those of you who already know what I'm talking about, sorry I butchered the theory. For those of you who don't, sorry if this doesn't make any sense. Katherine T, I have subtly disguised your name so that you won't feel exposed to the paparazzi. Thank you for your patience.
This all really came about because someone at work had birthday cake today, and I said yes to be kind, and then remembered that I don't care for cake...and then my internet was working, and the next thing you know I'm recording my delusional ramblings for posterity. Someday I'll write a coherent entry for this, I swear.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
District 9
That was a fabulous movie. There was nothing historical about it, so I don't have anything to criticize on that front, and I was tense through the entire film- it was amazing. Its been a long time since a movie held 100% of my attention like that. I had to go home and read something happier so I could sleep. It was intense and disturbing. I feel like I could say lots more about it, but I really don't want to spoil it for anyone who hasn't already seen it and might go. And you should go. These people are really the ones who should be making World War Z into a film...and anyone who knows me knows how strongly I feel about that book, so you know this must be a serious level of trust going on here.
The most important thing I learned from this is that I am, so far, unable to mimic a South African accent. I think I mostly end up sounding Scandinavian when I try- its sorta pathetic. It was really hard to effectively reenact the film when I was unable to reproduce Wikus's accent. I couldn't make myself sound like a prawn either, but I doubt that will come up in life as often as the South African thing. Including the voices really adds something to storytelling, and in this case I failed. Basically, although I was disturbed by the social messages of District 9, and think it was a great piece of art, what will really keep me awake at night is my inability to talk like I'm from Johannesburg.
The most important thing I learned from this is that I am, so far, unable to mimic a South African accent. I think I mostly end up sounding Scandinavian when I try- its sorta pathetic. It was really hard to effectively reenact the film when I was unable to reproduce Wikus's accent. I couldn't make myself sound like a prawn either, but I doubt that will come up in life as often as the South African thing. Including the voices really adds something to storytelling, and in this case I failed. Basically, although I was disturbed by the social messages of District 9, and think it was a great piece of art, what will really keep me awake at night is my inability to talk like I'm from Johannesburg.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Movies vs. Reality
I have a hard time watching a movie without doing my own research into what REALLY happened, or at least reading the book it was based on. Went to see Public Enemies the other day, and as soon as Johnny Depp vaulted over that counter to rob the bank I was hooked.
So, now I'm finishing up reading the book the movie was based on, and I'm even more fascinated. The most interesting part? All of the things you feel like they added to make Johnny Depp look cool were things that Dillinger really did. Jumping over counters? Check. Going to the police station where the Dillinger squad was headquartered? Not only check- he went like four times in the last month of his life. Reckless, sure, but cool. I know they couldn't do the plastic surgery that Dillinger had because you don't mess with Johnny's face, but on the whole, the Johnnies are equally cool, although one was unfortunately a criminal.
Also. Giovanni Ribisi (no idea how to spell his name, and I'm too lazy to go look it up) really looks like Alvin Karpis, who is my other favorite yegg. I thought that was weird and cool.
Know what they got wrong? Melvin Purvis? Not cool. Didn't really do that much either, just got the credit for it, and had his picture taken a lot. Also, the death of Pretty Boy Floyd was pretty accurate, except for the fact that is happened AFTER Dillinger died, and Mel Purvis didn't do it. (got his picture taken for it, though.)
What else have I learned? Bonnie and Clyde were dumb and small time. The Barkers were dumber, and Ma Barker the dumbest. Also, Shotgun George Ziegler? Disappointingly not related to Toby from The West Wing.
Knowing these things doesn't spoil the movie for me or anything like that...it just makes it so much more interesting. Don't worry, though. Pretty soon I'll move on from 1930's gangsters and start thinking about Julia Child.
So, now I'm finishing up reading the book the movie was based on, and I'm even more fascinated. The most interesting part? All of the things you feel like they added to make Johnny Depp look cool were things that Dillinger really did. Jumping over counters? Check. Going to the police station where the Dillinger squad was headquartered? Not only check- he went like four times in the last month of his life. Reckless, sure, but cool. I know they couldn't do the plastic surgery that Dillinger had because you don't mess with Johnny's face, but on the whole, the Johnnies are equally cool, although one was unfortunately a criminal.
Also. Giovanni Ribisi (no idea how to spell his name, and I'm too lazy to go look it up) really looks like Alvin Karpis, who is my other favorite yegg. I thought that was weird and cool.
Know what they got wrong? Melvin Purvis? Not cool. Didn't really do that much either, just got the credit for it, and had his picture taken a lot. Also, the death of Pretty Boy Floyd was pretty accurate, except for the fact that is happened AFTER Dillinger died, and Mel Purvis didn't do it. (got his picture taken for it, though.)
What else have I learned? Bonnie and Clyde were dumb and small time. The Barkers were dumber, and Ma Barker the dumbest. Also, Shotgun George Ziegler? Disappointingly not related to Toby from The West Wing.
Knowing these things doesn't spoil the movie for me or anything like that...it just makes it so much more interesting. Don't worry, though. Pretty soon I'll move on from 1930's gangsters and start thinking about Julia Child.
Friday, August 7, 2009
BEST idea?
Are the National Parks America's BEST idea? I was thinking maybe frappuccinos, celebrity worship, or the declaration of independence, but I don't have 10 years and a film crew to prove it, do I?
So last night I went to the screening of clips from The National Parks: America's Best Idea. Could you tell? I realize that my opener may have made it sound like I didn't enjoy the film, but that's not true. It was very interesting, and I fully intend to watch it when it airs on MPBN in its entirety. I did, however, notice that, although I consider myself a patriot, its not in the Ken Burns mold.
Documentaries like that seem to have a feeling of golly-the-American-spirit-is-amazing-and-we're-sorry-about-slavery-and-the-Indians-and-all-that-and-we're-not-ignoring-it-but-lets-focus-on-how-awesome-we-are feeling to them. It works, too. I nearly cried at the Acadia bit, everything was beautiful, the whole thing made me proud, AND it was funny. What more could you want? Well, I like it when they say "Teddy Roosevelt was kind of a douchebag, but ALSO a badass and we love him anyway, and here's why:" I'm a Sarah Vowell kind of patriot, I guess.
I don't know how Sarah Vowell feels, not being in her head, but when I read her books I'm fascinated with every warped twist and turn in American history, and it makes me love it more, warts and all. Lincoln WAS awesome, no matter what else is true about him- so shouldn't we be honest and talk about how he was also emo, and maybe think "gee, I wish I could have given Abe a hug."?
I don't think there's anything wrong with talking about how Jefferson was a prissy backstabber and Adams was a pompous ass who took himself too seriously. Its EXCELLENT. They were real dudes, and I might not have liked them, had I known them- doesn't make their ideas or their writing less great.
GDub may be beyond criticism. He may have actually been perfect, other than the rotten teeth thing. I'm still looking into this one.
I guess that after all of this my point is that I love history, I just prefer it a little more tongue in cheek and a little more even handed. Yep, we rocked WWII. So did the Russians (albeit in their own way), and our refusal to talk about that was a good reason to be ticked at us. Wilson was progressive and formed the League of Nations (which pretty much failed, but was a nifty idea) but he was a bitch to women. Plus, have you seen pictures of him? He looked mean.
History is so great...and I think we have a lot of reasons to be proud. Basically, Ken and I agree...I would probably just say it in a different way. Also, I would probably insist on my narrator conveying disgust at the wealthy "cottagers" on Mount Desert Island who Gave Acadia to the Nation. Frakkin summer people.
So last night I went to the screening of clips from The National Parks: America's Best Idea. Could you tell? I realize that my opener may have made it sound like I didn't enjoy the film, but that's not true. It was very interesting, and I fully intend to watch it when it airs on MPBN in its entirety. I did, however, notice that, although I consider myself a patriot, its not in the Ken Burns mold.
Documentaries like that seem to have a feeling of golly-the-American-spirit-is-amazing-and-we're-sorry-about-slavery-and-the-Indians-and-all-that-and-we're-not-ignoring-it-but-lets-focus-on-how-awesome-we-are feeling to them. It works, too. I nearly cried at the Acadia bit, everything was beautiful, the whole thing made me proud, AND it was funny. What more could you want? Well, I like it when they say "Teddy Roosevelt was kind of a douchebag, but ALSO a badass and we love him anyway, and here's why:" I'm a Sarah Vowell kind of patriot, I guess.
I don't know how Sarah Vowell feels, not being in her head, but when I read her books I'm fascinated with every warped twist and turn in American history, and it makes me love it more, warts and all. Lincoln WAS awesome, no matter what else is true about him- so shouldn't we be honest and talk about how he was also emo, and maybe think "gee, I wish I could have given Abe a hug."?
I don't think there's anything wrong with talking about how Jefferson was a prissy backstabber and Adams was a pompous ass who took himself too seriously. Its EXCELLENT. They were real dudes, and I might not have liked them, had I known them- doesn't make their ideas or their writing less great.
GDub may be beyond criticism. He may have actually been perfect, other than the rotten teeth thing. I'm still looking into this one.
I guess that after all of this my point is that I love history, I just prefer it a little more tongue in cheek and a little more even handed. Yep, we rocked WWII. So did the Russians (albeit in their own way), and our refusal to talk about that was a good reason to be ticked at us. Wilson was progressive and formed the League of Nations (which pretty much failed, but was a nifty idea) but he was a bitch to women. Plus, have you seen pictures of him? He looked mean.
History is so great...and I think we have a lot of reasons to be proud. Basically, Ken and I agree...I would probably just say it in a different way. Also, I would probably insist on my narrator conveying disgust at the wealthy "cottagers" on Mount Desert Island who Gave Acadia to the Nation. Frakkin summer people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
