One Damn Long Post About Books

So if you've been paying attention to the "What I'm Reading" section of the sidebar, you've noticed that it's undergone some changes. I finished A Farewell to Arms, and have added three new books to the mix. Those of you who are astute will also realize this means that Fearful Symmetry and Pu-239 have hit the backburner a little bit. It's not my fault. Really. It's Christmas. You see, the holidays invariably mean presents. And as I am known for picking up the occasional printed word, I usually ask for and receive the odd book or two. This year saw the addition of no less than six books to my stable, and some of them were read during my long absense from posting, so they never appeared on my reading list. So I thought I would do something similar to my movies/dvd reviews and hit several of them in the same post, though with slightly longer reviews.

Before getting to the books I have completed, I must say a few words about one I'm still reading. My esteemed friend Mr. Hanberg sent me Harold Bloom's Genius, a profile of 100 literary figures from throughout history. I'm still just at the beginning, but I am thoroughly enjoying it and wanted to give it a quick plug. Bloom, in case you don't know, is one of the preeminent literary critics in America. His specialities are Shakespeare, Milton and the English Romantics, and after reading the introduction, etc. and the first several profiles, I have made an astounding discovery: Harold Bloom is smarter than me. I know, it was a shock to me too. There is, of course, the chance that he is not really inherently smarter than me, but merely vastly better educated and more well read. In either case, the insight he has demonstrated even through the 60-odd pages I've read so far is amazing. If you pick this book up, be advised that Bloom will not work to bring you up to speed. If you can't keep up with him, that's your affair, not his. But that's not a condemnation-just a warning. I would strongly recommend picking up this book if you get the chance. And now, some quick hits on the books I have actually finished reading.

A Farewell to Arms
I took a class at Carleton called 20th Century Literature. Although I didn't think about it at the time, the title was ridiculously vague. What the class really should have been called was Modernist Lit. In case you've forgotten what exactly Modernism is, don't feel bad. Aside from being able to tell you that it's generally seen as a reaction to the horrors of the first world war, I'm drawing a blank. But fortuneately for you, I have A Glossary of Literary Terms by the incomparable M.H. Abrams in my possession, and I just went out to my bookcase and got it. So let's see what it says...hmm. Ok, Abrams talks a lot in that book. Although there were precursors before WWI, the war caused a whole lot of really smart people to rethink "traditional bases not only of Western Art, but of Western cultuer in general. ...The catastrophe of the war had shaken faith in the moral basis, coherence, and durability of Western civilization and raised doubts about the adequacy of traditional literary modes to represent the harsh and dissonant realities of the postwar world." So they started to shuck the traditional literary forms. Some of these were more obvious than others-if you've ever read a book with a section that is stream-of-consciousness on paper, with no punctuation or anything, you've probably read a modernist work. The most famous writers of the early 20th century are almost all modernist to some extent or another.
All that was by way of saying that Hemingway was one of the authors we read in that class. His style, rather than taking narration to the extreme of telling you everything in the character's head, is to strip the narration down to its barest essentials. What comes through in Farewell is an extremely compelling look at war as seen by a young American serving in the Italian army as an ambulance driver. Hemingway stark presents the realities of the cost of the war through his descriptions of the columns of wounded soldiers slowly moving back from the front. The wholesale retreat described in the third quarter of the book is particularily brilliant, and scattered conversations about possible ends to the fighting indicate just how uncertain the characters (and Hemingway) are about this new form of war. All this is contrasted with Henry's (the main character is named Frederic Henry, which doesn't really come up all that much) love for an English nurse named Catherine Barkley. The ending, which I won't give away, is heartbreakingly appropriate in that it completes Hemingway's disillusionment by providing no hope for the future. Bloom says that great literature transcends it's age, and this book certainly does. I've found that appreciation of Hemingway will sometimes tend to break down along gender lines: men like him, women don't. But with our present militaristic atmosphere, this is definately a book I recommend you pick up, read, and think about. Because Hemingway's minimalistic style of prose demands reflection and consideration, since you need to see what he's leaving out along with what he leaves in.

ps A big thanks to Mr. Erik Hanberg for sending me this book for Christmas last year. I actually did finish it before having it for a full year, Erik.

Sandman vol. IX: The Kindly Ones
I'm not really going to review this in detail, since it's essentially the climax of the previous eight graphic novels of Neil Gaiman's opus about Morpheus, the King of Dreams. If you've never picked them up, the Sandman volumes are graphic novels (which, for those of you who don't know thing one about comics, are collections of comic books) that will totally sell you on comics as a storytelling medium at worst and an artistic medium at best. I would recommend Alan Moore's Watchmen first to someone who had never read comics only because it can be had in one single volume as opposed to ten. Gaiman, over the course of several novels, has proven himself a brilliant writer and storyteller, but Sandman remains his best work, and this volume brings everything together and Gaiman proves he has the skill to bring in all the existing plot threads, tie them up in a neat little bow and then cut them off with an axe. I highly recommend it (volume one is called Preludes & Nocturns, and you can order it on amazon).

Hitchhiker: A Biography of Douglas Adams
Those of you who know me know that Adams is one of my favorite authors. Not only the Hitchhiker's Guide books, but his two Dirk Gently novels and other works as well (one of his best novles is a little read non-fiction book called Last Chance to See. Pick it up if you get the chance and are at all environmentally inclined or curious). This biography by M.J. Simpson is exhaustively researched (and footnoted!) and detailed. He shows how some of the most commonly told stories about Douglas, stories that Douglas himself told hundreds of times to reporters, are not entirely accurate. Simpson's intent is not to expose Douglas as a liar, but to give us an better understanding of how his mind worked: Douglas was, above all else, a storyteller, who meticulously refined his books (when his editors gave him the time). He also, though not consciously, refined the stories that he had to tell over an over again in the course of hundreds of interviews. I won't go into more detail, simply because, in this book, there's too much detail to go into. I would only recommend this book if you're a fan of Adams' work. I suspect that a casual fan may find this book slow at times. But if you're interested in him, and I recommend reading The Salmon of Doubt to whet your appetite, pick this up and you'll learn most everything you could possibly want to know.

Joy in the Morning and Jeeves and the Tie that Binds
(note: The UK title of ...Tie that Binds is Much Obliged, Jeeves. So don't buy both.)

The curse has come upon me. As I warned you it would, if I ever visited Steeple Bumpleigh.

You have long been familiar with my views on this leper colony. Have I not repeatedly said

that, what though the spicy breezes blow soft o'er Steeple Bumpleigh, the undersigned deemed

it wisest to give it the complete miss in baulk?

I learned P.G. Wodehouse existed through Douglas Adams. In the aforementioned Salmon of Doubt Adams cites Wodehouse as one of his greatest influences. So I decided to pick up something by Wodehouse. So the next time I was at B&N I went over the 'W' section. And there I found that Wodehouse had the entire lower shelf to himself. It was a sizeable shelf. So I went away defeated, since I didn't want to just buy something without some idea of what I was getting into. Some time after that I came across a copy of The World of Jeeves in a used bookstore, which purported to contain all of the short stories Wodehouse wrote about Bertie Wooster and his servant and savior Jeeves. I bought it, read it, and loved it. So much so that I sent a copy to my friend the Math Avenger for his birthday, and upon his completion he posted on his blog (linked in the sidebar) some insightful musings on Wodehouse and the volume in question which I urge you to check out. Anyway, in the aftermath of reading 34 short stories about Bertie and Jeeves I was left wanting more, and thus I picked up two of the eleven (by my count) novels covering the exploits of the original dynamic duo. Joy in the Morning is the better of the two, but that's in the way of praising it rather than putting down Tie that Binds. Both contain Wodehouse's immediately addictive style of writing and preternatural instinct for comic phrasing and timing, and Joy in the Morning triumphs only in that the situations Bertie finds himself thrown into are more fantastic than in the other novel. Both these books pick up on existing relationships that began either in the short stories or in other novels, so I highly recommend you at least read the short stories first, though if you don't Wodehouse does give you an update on previous event so as to not leave you out in the cold.
Since first reading Wodehouse, I find myself noticing quotes from people concerning the half-life of comedic novels. They do not age well, all the quotes say, unless the author's name happens to be Wodehouse. I thoroughly enjoyed these books and the short stories that preceded them. If you're looking for something to make you laugh that's well written with turns of phrase that will send you off your chair, look no further. Wodehouse is the answer.

So that's it for the books I've read recently. Right now I'm in the middle of The Name of the Rose, so I'll let you know when I'm done with that. I may take a break for a day or two, but I'll come back hopefully with some musings on MN's first big snowfall of the year, which happened last Friday.

Assault on Precinct 13 Review/Joe's Movie Lessons 101

So what differenciates this movie, which was pretty decent, from a crappy action movie, such as, say, Catwoman? I had the occasion to view the latter film last night at the abode of one Java Fortran. He had purchased the dvd earlier that day, which I wasn't really all that surprized at, since he had wanted to see this movie in the theater opening weekend. He also bought Barbarella: Queen of the Galaxy, which I was not expecting, only because I was completely unaware that such a movie existed. Having viewed only the trailer so far, I can assure you all that it appears to be B-movie gold, especially with Jane Fonda in the lead role. Rest assured that I'll give it at least a quick write-up after it is inevitably screened at a pizza night. But I digress.

Catwoman sucks. After seeing and enjoying Elektra, and considering that they pulled in comparable rottentomatoes scores, I thought that Catwoman might have some redeeming features. I was wrong. It's not the worst movie I've ever seen, because that honor belongs now and forever to It's Pat (never, NEVER see that movie-in 15 states it's actually legal to murder someone who attempts to show it to you). But Catwoman is bad-plot, costumes, everything. There were a few decent one liners, but only enough to balance out the really bad ones. The acting itself wasn't bad, but that's about all I can say.

But other than the fact that the plot to Precinct 13 has two minor plot holes, as oppsed to 38, what separates it from the bottom of the barrel and makes it pretty damn good? Characters, my friends. Characters. You see, Precinct 13 actually has characters who resonate with the viewer. I'm not saying any of these performances are going to overtake Bogey in Casablanca or Morgan Freeman in Shawshank, but, for the time I was in the theater, the characters actually held my attention. Made me concerned about their ultimate fate (and hoo damn, did a lot of them die! One thing about this movie-it's not afraid to kill people off). And that's what any movie, really, needs to do. Come out with good characters, and even if the plot is predictable or sub-standard, and you can come out with a pretty good flick.

To sum up: Precinct 13: good (as far as action flicks go). Catwoman: bad. It's Pat: very, very bad. Characterization: essential. There'll be a test next week, so I hope you were taking notes.

The Aviator Review

So it's the movie awards season, which means that suddenly shows like Entertainment Tonight and Access Hollywood can fill up half their show with something other than the Pitt/Aniston breakup. One thing you usually hear when people start talking about Oscar favorites is that one picture or another is "the type of film Hollywood likes." I never really understood that, especially since the two best films from 2003, The Return of the King and Lost in Translation didn't fit into this category. I mean, does the hellhole that is L.A. mold the thoughts and spirits of the unfortunates who come into its grasp to such a great degree that outsiders can predict exactly which film will appeal to them? I would assume that the normal turnover of old people dying and new people coming in would mean that Hollywood's attitude toward films would change, at least a little bit, from year to year. But maybe all the new people take an oath not to change anything, while the old dead people still vote from their cryogenic freezer tubes next to Ted Williams (disturbing side note: appearently, Ted William's head was separated from his body before it was frozen, and his head is now sitting, Futurama-style, in a separate container).

But now that I've seen The Aviator, I understand a little bit of the "this is what Hollywood likes" formula. The Aviator has just about everything: a compelling central figure, fantastic supporting characters who include some of Hollywood's most famous stars, brilliant triumphs and debilitating pathos. Leo does an excellent job as Hughes, especially portraying his struggle with mental illness. The supporting cast includes Cate Blanchett, Kate Beckinsale, John C. Reily, Alec Baldwin and Alan Alda, and they predictably deliver solid performances across the board. Watch for camoes by Brent Spiner, Willem Dafoe, and Jude Law, who continues his streak of appearing in every film to come out in the last six months. Scorsese directs an excellent film, especially in showing the depths and difficulties of Hughes' illness. Hughes is the sort of character that will appeal to a lot of oscar voters, probably more so than the everymen characters of Sideways, who have neither Hughes' brilliance or problems. Aside from being well written, acted and directed, the movie is epic (both in scope and length, clocking in at just under 3 hours), true (insofar as any biopic is true) and self-referential (in that it portrays Hollywood without really being about it).

If you asked me what my five favorite movies from last year were, I would probably say Eternal Sunshine, Sideways, The Incredibles, Spider-Man 2 and Hero, with the first two being the best films. But with all the above factors working in its favor, and especially after winning the Golden Globe for best Dramatic Film (although I don't really know that Sideways belonged in the comedy category ), The Aviator has to be considered the leading frontrunner for Best Picture.

Elektra Review

Maybe it's just because I'm a rabid comic book fan, but this movie is nowhere near as bad as the 7% it's pulling in on Rottentomatoes. Yes, there are glaring plot holes, most notably explaining why the hand killed Elektra's mom, why Stick brought Elektra back from the dead, what exactly the young girl's background is and what exactly her abilities are. In fact, the whole "war between good and evil" idea is not really filled in much, if at all. Elektra is not as good as the theatrical cut of Daredevil, and definately not as good as the Director's Cut. But damn it, I enjoyed this movie, and not only because Jennifer Garner looks good in red (and anything else she wears).

For me the movie works because they did a good job with Elektra's character. Garner is excellent, exuding confidence and cool in the assassination scenes and indecision when she's not killing someone. But this character was always going to depend on more than a good performance, and I like how the director showed her ability to operate in the shadows. The supporting cast is not bad, and Terrance Stamp certainly does a fantastic job as the enigmatic sensei Stick. The action is not fantastic, but it is passable and it moves along at a pretty good pace. The movie is lacking a good bit of backstory, but I did like the fact that it zips over Elektra's revival. It gets a grand total of something like 2 or 3 minutes of screen time, and then it's a flashback. Although a few more explanitory flashbacks that dealt with some of the questions I listed above would have been good, I liked how they dealt with the backstory that they had.

This is definately not one of Marvel's better films, and the ending gets a little sappy, but I enjoyed the journey. I'd put it on about the level of The Punisher, although with less edge. It's certainly not as bad as most critics would have you believe. If you give it a chance and go in with reasonable expectations, you might have a good time.

A Brief History of Visual Media

Time is, as they say, fluid. It flows over us, catches us in its undertow, and carries us merrily along. Fortuneately, it serves cocktails before it throws us over that big waterfall at the end. All this is by way of saying that, in the rush of time, my intention to write several separate pieces review certain things I have seen in the last month or so has been washed away like so much pipeweed. So what I'm going to do to amend this situation is give a series of brief, yet hopefully informative reviews of all the stuff I should have already told you about. So here we go.

The Simpsons
Seasons 3 & 4
DVD
I got season 4 the day after Thanksgiving on sale for $18, and Kathreen gave me season 3 for Christmas, so naturally I have experienced a resurgence in my Simpsons watching, which had fallen off quite a bit with my possession of multiple volumes of Futurama, Family Guy and Smallville.
Season 4 is the superior of the two. It contains some of my personal favorites (Kamp Krusty, Homer the Heretic, Wacking Day), some of the most famous episodes (Marge Vs. the Monorail, Homer's Triple Bypass, Mr. Plow), and some of the most emotionally resonant (Lisa's First Word, New Kid on the Block, A Streetcar Named Marge). The secret of season 4 is that it was the first season with Conan O'Brien as a member of the writing team. He is credited as the writer of New Kid on the Block and Marge Vs. the Monorail, and the commentary contains some hilarious remarks on his personality. Unfortuneately, Conan only takes part in one of the episode commentaries (despite being credited on two), but his absense just means the remaining people can reveal more telling ancedotes about him.
Season 3 is definately a bit of an in-between, and is therefore a little hard to categorize. Some of the episodes are classic (Flaming Moe's, Burns Verkaufen Der Kraftwerk, I Married Marge, Black Widower and Brother, Can you Spare Two Dimes?), with the brilliant situations and emotion that characterize the best Simpson episodes. Others (Bart the Murderer, Lisa the Greek) are great for the first half but fail to finish strong. And still others (When Flanders Failed, Homer Defined, Saturdays of Thunder) are decent but lack the sophistication of the better episodes (although I do really like the line in Saturdays of Thunder: "Bart, what did I just say?" "Kill spectators."). In short, both these seasons are excellent and well worth getting, and represent the begining of the Golden Age of The Simpsons.

Smallville Season 3
DVD
I haven't finished watching Season 3 of Smallville yet, but even so I can tell you it's the best of the three seasons out on dvd right now. Not that it will mean anything to you if you haven't watched the first two already. Although it didn't look like it during most of the first season, Smallville evolved quickly into a show that demands constant following of the plot line. Season 3 surpasses season 2 because Clark isn't pissing off both Chloe and Lana in some manner or another every week, and he finally gains his super-hearing ability, which he uses to great effect. Plus the fight between Lex and Lionel takes several steps forward into the disturbingly dark side of things. The best episodes are the two parts of the season premiere, Perry, Truth (which, between the two of them have the best non-cliffhanger moments of the season), Legacy, and Obsession (which, aside from having the best Clark-with-a-girl moment since Lana's pool scene in season 1, is going to figure prominently in the next couple of new episodes). Watch the first two seasons, then get ready for the payoff in 3.

Daredevil: The Director's Cut
DVD
The Director's Cut of Daredevil is so shockingly different, I couldn't believe it. There are significant differences, both additions and subtractions. Murdock no longer sleeps with Elektra. They don't have the conversation while walking down the sidewalk, in which she talks about her many senseis and he acts decidedly unlike a blind man. Matt doesn't seek redemption from his priest. There is an entirely new plotline involving a new case that the legalistic duo take up, and the overall plot of the movie works much better. Watch the making of featurette and you can see the producer saying that the real movie is the one that played in theaters, and then cut immediately to the director who is all but screaming that the studio made him ruin his movie, and isn't it better this way? He's right: if you liked Daredevil, you'll like the D.C. If you didn't like the original, give this one a shot. You may be surprized.

Ocean's 12
Bottom line? This sequel has the cool attitude of the original. The characters are great, the heist contest is a cool idea. But the emotional payoff isn't as big, mostly because of the nature of the twist. Julia Roberts as Tess impersonating Julia Roberts is damn funny, especially with Bruce Willis thrown in the mix to blow it up a little. Of course, it raises the question of why Linus simply doesn't impersonate Matt Damon. But seeing "and introducing Tess as Julia Roberts" in the credits is worth it. Soderbergh definately has the sense of style to carry the movie, but if they make another one I hope they put a little more meat in the pie. (Sheperd's pie, stupid. Not regular pie.)

House of Flying Daggers
Fantastic movie. Very, very good. My viewing of it was a little tainted by the fact that I didn't realize the focus was on the love triangle, as opposed to the political conflict. You know how a lot of movies have a romantic backstory thrown in to help compliment the main arc? Well, this love story has political intrigue and stunningly beautiful martial arts scenes thrown in to help it move along. I think I like Hero a little better, but this movie is amazing. This film had more moments where I had no idea what was going to happen next than anything else I've seen recently. Well worth your time and money to see.

Sideways
Go see this movie. That's all I have to say.
Ok, fine, that's not all I have to say. Along with HoFD, one of the best movies to come out recently (this year, last year, whatever). The two main characters are fully realized and brilliantly written. Don't try to pigeonhole them or discount what they say, because while they both have significant faults, they both have insight into (at least) the other's life and problems. Extremely well written (better than anything else I saw last year, save maybe Eternal Sunshine), acted, shot, directed. There's a reason this film is getting a lot of attention and praise from critics. It's because this movie is too good to pass up, and the only way people will see it is by positive word of mouth. This is the sort of intelligent film that blows away most of the fluff that gets put out (even though it is often enjoyable fluff). Funny and introspective without getting too dark or taking itself too seriously. Again, see this movie. You'll be glad you did.

That's all for now, people. It's good to be back, and look for some book reviews coming your way soon.

Back from a Long Vacation

Hey everyone. Sorry it's been so long since my last post, but it was one of those situations where things just kept leading into one another. My break for Christmas turned into a break for my trip to Portland, OR, which became a break for New Year's, which morphed into a break to recover from New Year's. Of course, that gets us up to a week ago, and the rest of that is just me procrastinating. I do, however, have several things I want to get up in the next few days, and hopefully I can dig deep to find the fortitude to somehow endure, and pull through. Hmmm. That last line reads with a good deal less sarcasm than it had in my head. Oh well.

So much has happened in the last couple weeks, and of course the massive tragedy in Asia has to top the list. Obviously, this has been the focus of international attention since it happened, so there's nothing I can really add to the discussion, except to exhort everyone to, if at all possible, give to Unicef, the International Red Cross, or some other legitimate relief organization. I know that most of you are in no position, financially, to do so. But if you are, please do.

That said, there is another earth-shattering event that has taken place recently about which I feel compelled to say a few words. It is the triumph of good over evil, against all odds. It is the vindication of an entire people, whose hopes and dreams have finally been fulfilled. There has been no event like it since Fall 1998, and it can be argued that it even eclipses that memorable event. For at last, I can stand tall and proud as I declare that the Green Bay Packers Suck! Last Sunday, the Vikings went into Lambeau, where no one gave them a chance to win. Except me. Sure, they had lost seven of their last ten games. Sure, they had lost to a sub-500 Washington team and backed into the playoffs. Sure, nothing resembling a defense had taken the field for the last five weeks. But I figured the bottom had to show up sooner or later, and now was as good a time as any.

I'm not posturing about this, I'm serious-I thought the Vikes had a good chance to win going into the game. After losing two games to the Packers by identical last-second field goals, I realized it wouldn't take much to put them over the top. I discounted the cold/outdoor part of the equation, because I think that sort of thing gets overhyped. All these players played years of football outdoors and in the cold. How many high school and college football programs do you know that play inside? (Two: the Gophers and Eden Prarie High School, and very Vikings players played for either of those programs.) But even if you wanted to leave in the Lambeau factor, the Packers were only .500 at home this year, and two years ago they lost their first home playoff game ever to the Falcons. No, I figured the two biggest factors would be Randy Moss and Antione Winfield. Moss, of course, had caught all sorts of hell for walking off the field with 2 seconds left on the clock in Washington, as the Vikes were attempting an almost hopeless onside kick (I will say that that was an entirely improper and insulting move on his part, and leave it at that). As most people who have paid attention to the Vikes and Moss since '98 will tell you, he generally responds to that level of criticism by having a massive game. Moss also has the tendency to really show up for the big games. Given that he was not full speed for the Christmas eve game and sat out the first Vikes/Packers contest, there was every reason to suspect that he would put up very serious effort on the field. And when Moss makes a serious effort, he becomes the most dangerous player in the game. I would be willing to put good money on the idea that if he hadn't injured his ankle during the game, he would have had much more than 70 yards and 2 touchdowns on his stat sheet.

Second, and perhaps more important, was Winfield, who is the Vikes' best defensive player not named Kevin Williams. Winfield had been hobbled for about a month, and was just getting back up to full speed. This was a major shot in the arm for the defense, who suddenly had their best tackler back. Winfield had 11 tackles and the first of what would be four interceptions against Farve. Farve is the type of player who can be fantastically good or indescribably bad, and Winfield's presence was key in making sure Farve didn't pick himself up and make a charge to win the game.

So I'm enjoying basking in the rays of the Vikes victory this week, and I'm once again confident that we have an excellent chance to beat Philly. But even if we lose, I can rest easy during the offseason knowing that this one victory more than made up for losing the two regular season games, because the Vikes won the one that counted.

*As a postscript, I'll say a few quick words about the whole Moss faux-mooning situation. The attention it's gotten in the national media is totally ridiculous and overblown. Don't get me wrong, there has been some intelligent treatment of the situation, but saying the team and the fans are fed up with Moss and he's going to be traded over this is insane. To me, this is a non-issue. The act itself wasn't that distasteful, especially when you consider that the Packer fans traditionally moon a losing team's bus as it leaves the field. In that light, it's actually pretty funny. If you're worried about kids seeing this, they see worse every day at school and on TV. Hell, they saw worse watching the commericals during the game. If you're an adult and are overly offended by this, then you're a crackpot who probably gets offended by a extraordinarily large proportion of things you see in everyday life and writes letters to the editor that get passed around as jokes at lunchtime. It was juvinile humor and nothing more, not worth a tenth of the ink it's getting around the country. If you want to read a much better and more humorous take on this, check this out: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=fleming/050112