In Cold Blood- Truman Capote
How I found this book: I knew about this book because of the movie, part of which I caught on TCM one day, (Turner Classic Movies on US cable). I happened to be at Barnes and Noble last year looking at a discount table, and they had this and several other books on sale, several for like $20, so I got it thinking it might be interesting to read.
Setting: 19th Late 50’s, early 60’s Holcomb, Kansas. One of my friends actually grew up in the town of Garden City, which is where the family actually did attend church.
Main Characters:
Herbert Clutter: A wealthy rancher in Western Kansas, he is the patriarch of the Clutter family. He appears to be a good, honest man who people like working for and with, and who has built up a modest empire for himself.
Bonnie Clutter: Herbert’s wife, she suffers from severe depression.
Nancy Clutter: 16-years-old, she is a vivacious teenager with a steady boyfriend, who likes to ride horses. She’s good with housework and cooking, and seems excited about one of her older sister’s weddings in a few weeks.
Kenyon Clutter: 15-years-old, he likes to drive his vehicle out on the dunes of Western Kansas.
Dick Hickock: An ex-con who served time in the Kansas State Penitentiary for check writing, he hears about the Clutters from one of his cell mates, and convinces Perry Smith to go with him to the Clutter’s home because he’s convinced the Clutter’s are rich. He was once a promising athlete, but at the time of the murders worked as a mechanic and lived with his aging parents. He had been married, but divorced his wife.
Perry Smith: Another ex-con, Perry Smith led a roust-about. He meets Hickock in prison, but it’s after they both get out that Hickock hatches the plan to kill the Clutters. Smith helped Hickock kill the family, and the pair escaped to Mexico, then to Miami, before going to Las Vegas.
Plot: This is a real life story. The Clutters, a successful ranching family in Western Kansas, are brutally murdered by two-ex cons who were attempting to steal from the family. When it is discovered that the family doesn’t have money at the house, they steal what they can and return to Kansas City to pass off checks and sell their goods before high tailing it to Mexico. While the police are searching for every possible clue to find who could have murdered this respected family in cold blood, Perry Smith and Dick Hickock stay as far away as possible, until the law finally catches up to the pair in Las Vegas. After what is a sensational trial for the small, sleepy farming communities around Garden City, the pair is sentenced to Death Row, where they try to appeal the process. They eventually are executed by hanging in April 1965.
Themes:
A senseless murder: Truman Capote broke from his usual mold in writing what could be called the first ‘true crime’ novel written, differing from his purely fictional fair previously. Here he documents a senseless murder and seeks to find out why the men committed the acts that they did. There seems to be no clear reason for the murders, outside of greed, but Truman Capote goes into detail about why and how the men hatched the plot, what each of them thought about committing the crime, and what their remorse, if any was.
Crime in a small town: Those of us who live in big cities know that we tend to get de-sensitized to crime and murder all around us. But I grew up in a small town, and I remember what it was like to have anything happen out of the ordinary. Imagine what a brutal, quadruple murder will do to a town. It causes neighbor to start looking suspiciously at another neighbor, for people to clamor for justice to be done. Gossip flies fast and free. In small-town America these things are so rare it is shocking to the psyche there, and is less easily forgotten than in big cities. My friend who grew up there says they still talk about the murders now fifty years since they happened.
The ‘disenfranchised and disillusioned’: Smith and Hickock represent a growing number of people in the 50’s and 60’s that were becoming disillusioned and disenfranchised by the post-World War II society. Both of these young men are very different, Perry was raised in foster homes and by a reclusive father, while Dick actually grew up in a very normal, if poor home-life, resenting the fact that he wasn’t given all the things he thought he should get in life. Both men suffered from feeling outside of the mainstream, of feeling the need to strike back and take what they want, which they did in the most violent of ways.
The psychology of a killer: Both the psychologists who worked with Smith and Hickock and Truman Capote himself tried to discover WHY it was that two men would so willingly commit a completely senseless murder that turned up very little for them in the end. Capote shows for us the chilling details of their planning of the murder and their flight, and how neither shows any remorse really for what they have done, or what little is shown is very distant and doesn’t appear to be emotionally linked to them at all. We see here the murderers as sociopaths who have little to no understanding of the true ramifications of their actions outside of the ramifications to themselves.
Every book sucks somewhere: I have to say there is very little about this book that sucked for me. I think the suckiest part was that the murders had to happen at all.
What did I like: Truman Capote made this story engaging. Often with these ‘true crime’ stories either in book form or on television I become bored very quickly. By humanizing both the family and the murderers, he made you realize the true depth and scope of the tragedy, and that you saw that these were real people. Even Smith and Hickock came off as painfully human; taking away a lot of the ‘monster’ quality we associate with murderers in our society, and making them people that we can relate to. I think this aspect shows us how something like this happens, and how anyone could commit a crime just like this, given the circumstances and choices made.
How would I rate this wormy book: I would rate this as a MONSTER book, if nothing else to show how Truman Capote took his masterful story-telling technique and applied it to a real-life situation. Its pain and gut-wrenching at times, but it is a good read and it is interesting to see the anatomy of a murder displayed in such a manner.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Friday, March 14, 2008
Love in the Time of Cholera
Love in the Time of Cholera- Gabriel García Márquez
How I found this book: It’s mentioned by every chic-lit person I know who says, “OH MY GOD, it’s SUCH a great book.” But really my friend Megan convinced me because she was curious as well.
Setting: 19th century-20th century, I believe it is supposed to be Columbia.
Main Characters:
Florentino Ariza: a romantic youth who loves poetry and Fermina Diaz, he has an idealistic conceptualization of love. He falls for Fermina when they are both young, but when she marries another, he spends the rest of his adult life reserving his heart for her, while engaging in one love affair after another. He is, in a twisted sense, carrying on the ideals of ‘chivalric love’, bearing out the sincerity of his love, even if he is a cad.
Fermina Daza: as a young girl she falls in love with Florentino Ariza, attracted by his romantic ardor. She begins wonder about the true nature of their romance, and rejects Florentino to marry the more established Juvenal, and helps to create a long marriage.
Juvenal Urbino: Fermina’s husband, ten years her senior, he is a well-respected and established doctor who is devoted to the notion of eradicating cholera. He is a good husband to Fermina for the most part. The book opens with his death, but as you flashback you see the rich and idealistic Juvenal, his nobel aspirations, and the relationship he has with Fermina.
Plot: Juvenal Urbino discovers after the death of one of his close friends that he had been having a secret affair with a woman he loved for years. For whatever reason this unsettles the venerable doctor, who dies himself just days later in an accident. This leaves his wife of many years, Fermina, now widowed. But after his funeral her former lover, Florentino, arrives to state he ahs always loved her. Angry, she kicks him out, but this starts a flashback series where we see a young, poetic Florentino wooing a teenaged Fermina. Like most chivalric romances, most of this one is from a far, with many romantic promises. But reality finally hits Fermina, who eventually marries the far more certain and stable Juvenal, with whom she builds a life. He too has his own dreams and ambitions like Florentino, and seems to offer Fermina a good life. Florentino, wounded that the woman he loved chose another vows to never love another woman till he dies unless he can have Fermina. This doesn't stop the passionate Florentino from taking on hundreds of lovers, but his heart remains only for Fermina. In the end, it is only after Juvenal's death that the two rekindle their friendship and later their love for one another, now shaped and changed by 50 years of seperation.
Themes:
Romantic vs. Steadfast love: Believe it or not there is a difference between romantic, all-consuming passion and steadfast love. I think on many levels Marquez shows us this notion of steadfast love, both in the fact that after all these years Florentino still loves Fermina, and in Fermina and Juvenal's devotion to each other despite the hardships of marriage and life. It differs markedly from the all-consuming love that Florentino and Fermina first display for each other, or that Florentino wallows in as a spurned man. That love is almost paralytic and causes people to act rashly or without thinking. With age it seems also comes wisdom, as the steadfast sort of love displayed by the characters comes only with much experience. While they are markedly different in the forms they take, they seem to be much more stable and less disasterous than the more romantic passions displayed in their youths, particularly Fermina and Florentino.
Scientific vs. Romantic: This is best displayed between Juvenal and Florentino, the two loves of Fermina's life, and seem to display the two sides of her own nature. Juvenal is a man of science, out to cure his nation of cholera if he can, who uses this as the standard by which he can measure his life. Florentino is passionate and often lost in fancies. His entire life is run by the way he feels at that exact moment. The two are opposites in many ways, and Fermina stands in between the two, anchoring them both. She both softens Juvenal and grounds Florentino. Perhaps that is why she can find love with both men so equally.
Cholera: Both literally and metaphorically this disease is all consuming. It hits the country with regularity taking many with it. It is the consuming passion of Juvenal, who wishes to stomp it out. And love in this book can often be much like it, burst into life and ravage everything, sweeping all up in its path.
Every book sucks somewhere: I have to admit it...I didn't get this book. I know it's won prizes, I know people LOVE it. I didn't get it. Perhaps because of the translation from Spanish to English it loses something in translation. Perhaps it's just the style, long, drug out, heavily metaphorical, and thick to read. At the time I read the book, I had just gotten back from Italy, and was tired of having to think, so the style might just have hit me at the wrong time. But
I didn't appreciate Florentino, I saw him as nothing more than a cad who bewailed how he loved Fermina alone, and then slept with anything that moved. Maybe it's just me, but a part of me wanted to beat him like a red-headed stepchild, (I phrase I can get away with saying as I am both red-headed and a stepchild, but rarely ever beat). Honestly, how silly and immature is acting like that? I think at least by the end he had learned most of his lessons, but the scene at Juvenal's funeral was, at best, inappropriate.
What did I like: While the story seems to climax with Fermina and Florentino, the actual love story I empathized with was Juvenals. Sure, perhaps he wasn't as romantic, and he did cheat on her once, but it seemed to be such a more real, solid, tangible thing to me. Something that is much more comfortable than what Florentino offered.
How would I rate this wormy book: I'd rate this a LITTLE worm. I was so not enthralled with this book, a bit disappointing since I had heard rave reviews about it. It held little interest for me. I won't say it's a horrible book, especially not a prize winning one, but it wasn't really all that great either. It was a rather big disappointment.
How I found this book: It’s mentioned by every chic-lit person I know who says, “OH MY GOD, it’s SUCH a great book.” But really my friend Megan convinced me because she was curious as well.
Setting: 19th century-20th century, I believe it is supposed to be Columbia.
Main Characters:
Florentino Ariza: a romantic youth who loves poetry and Fermina Diaz, he has an idealistic conceptualization of love. He falls for Fermina when they are both young, but when she marries another, he spends the rest of his adult life reserving his heart for her, while engaging in one love affair after another. He is, in a twisted sense, carrying on the ideals of ‘chivalric love’, bearing out the sincerity of his love, even if he is a cad.
Fermina Daza: as a young girl she falls in love with Florentino Ariza, attracted by his romantic ardor. She begins wonder about the true nature of their romance, and rejects Florentino to marry the more established Juvenal, and helps to create a long marriage.
Juvenal Urbino: Fermina’s husband, ten years her senior, he is a well-respected and established doctor who is devoted to the notion of eradicating cholera. He is a good husband to Fermina for the most part. The book opens with his death, but as you flashback you see the rich and idealistic Juvenal, his nobel aspirations, and the relationship he has with Fermina.
Plot: Juvenal Urbino discovers after the death of one of his close friends that he had been having a secret affair with a woman he loved for years. For whatever reason this unsettles the venerable doctor, who dies himself just days later in an accident. This leaves his wife of many years, Fermina, now widowed. But after his funeral her former lover, Florentino, arrives to state he ahs always loved her. Angry, she kicks him out, but this starts a flashback series where we see a young, poetic Florentino wooing a teenaged Fermina. Like most chivalric romances, most of this one is from a far, with many romantic promises. But reality finally hits Fermina, who eventually marries the far more certain and stable Juvenal, with whom she builds a life. He too has his own dreams and ambitions like Florentino, and seems to offer Fermina a good life. Florentino, wounded that the woman he loved chose another vows to never love another woman till he dies unless he can have Fermina. This doesn't stop the passionate Florentino from taking on hundreds of lovers, but his heart remains only for Fermina. In the end, it is only after Juvenal's death that the two rekindle their friendship and later their love for one another, now shaped and changed by 50 years of seperation.
Themes:
Romantic vs. Steadfast love: Believe it or not there is a difference between romantic, all-consuming passion and steadfast love. I think on many levels Marquez shows us this notion of steadfast love, both in the fact that after all these years Florentino still loves Fermina, and in Fermina and Juvenal's devotion to each other despite the hardships of marriage and life. It differs markedly from the all-consuming love that Florentino and Fermina first display for each other, or that Florentino wallows in as a spurned man. That love is almost paralytic and causes people to act rashly or without thinking. With age it seems also comes wisdom, as the steadfast sort of love displayed by the characters comes only with much experience. While they are markedly different in the forms they take, they seem to be much more stable and less disasterous than the more romantic passions displayed in their youths, particularly Fermina and Florentino.
Scientific vs. Romantic: This is best displayed between Juvenal and Florentino, the two loves of Fermina's life, and seem to display the two sides of her own nature. Juvenal is a man of science, out to cure his nation of cholera if he can, who uses this as the standard by which he can measure his life. Florentino is passionate and often lost in fancies. His entire life is run by the way he feels at that exact moment. The two are opposites in many ways, and Fermina stands in between the two, anchoring them both. She both softens Juvenal and grounds Florentino. Perhaps that is why she can find love with both men so equally.
Cholera: Both literally and metaphorically this disease is all consuming. It hits the country with regularity taking many with it. It is the consuming passion of Juvenal, who wishes to stomp it out. And love in this book can often be much like it, burst into life and ravage everything, sweeping all up in its path.
Every book sucks somewhere: I have to admit it...I didn't get this book. I know it's won prizes, I know people LOVE it. I didn't get it. Perhaps because of the translation from Spanish to English it loses something in translation. Perhaps it's just the style, long, drug out, heavily metaphorical, and thick to read. At the time I read the book, I had just gotten back from Italy, and was tired of having to think, so the style might just have hit me at the wrong time. But
I didn't appreciate Florentino, I saw him as nothing more than a cad who bewailed how he loved Fermina alone, and then slept with anything that moved. Maybe it's just me, but a part of me wanted to beat him like a red-headed stepchild, (I phrase I can get away with saying as I am both red-headed and a stepchild, but rarely ever beat). Honestly, how silly and immature is acting like that? I think at least by the end he had learned most of his lessons, but the scene at Juvenal's funeral was, at best, inappropriate.
What did I like: While the story seems to climax with Fermina and Florentino, the actual love story I empathized with was Juvenals. Sure, perhaps he wasn't as romantic, and he did cheat on her once, but it seemed to be such a more real, solid, tangible thing to me. Something that is much more comfortable than what Florentino offered.
How would I rate this wormy book: I'd rate this a LITTLE worm. I was so not enthralled with this book, a bit disappointing since I had heard rave reviews about it. It held little interest for me. I won't say it's a horrible book, especially not a prize winning one, but it wasn't really all that great either. It was a rather big disappointment.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
The Silmarillion
The Silmarillion-J.R.R. Tolkien
How I found this book: I was born, and my father placed it in my hand, and said, “Daughter, you shall loveth thy Tolkien, and it shall be good in thy sight.” This sentence is only funny if you know my father’s a Southern Baptist Minister and a Tolkien freak. I’m surprised he doesn’t speak Elvish.
Setting: In the First and Second Ages of Middle-Earth, in other words, EONS before the happenings of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings.
Plot:
Main Characters:
There are many, but to highlight some of the more important ones….
Illuvatar: The ‘one god’ of this piece, if you wish you can call him/her/it God, Goddess, Allah, whatever, it’s never made clear, but it is supposed to be the originator of Middle-earth.
The Valar: A sort of pantheon of gods, they are more like angelic beings who went about creating the world in Illuvatar’s image, and now guide it. They are the beings whom the Elves seem to worship.
The Maiar: A lesser group of divine beings, also somewhat angelic in nature, who assist the Valar in the running of the world. One of note, Melian, wed an Elvish king, and is the mother of Luthien, one of the heroines of the stories. The wizards, such as Gandalf, are also Maiar.
Melkor: A rogue Valar, he has always wanted to work the world in his own way, and works against Illuvatar and the Valar. He’s the sort of Lucifer of the stories.
Sauron: One of the Maiar who is enlisted into Melkor’s service, he is perhaps the greatest of Melkor’s assistants, and helps bring the fall of Numenor. He is later the great evil of The Lord of the Rings stories.
Elves: They are the ‘first born’ of Illuvatar, and are immune to death by old age or disease, (though they can die by injury). They are brought to the land of the Valar from Middle Earth to be taught by the godlike beings, though not all of the Elves follow. This leads to the many nations of Elves that we find in the later stories. Of note are the Noldor, those who were craftsmen. It is they who create the Silmaril, gems that capture the light of the gold and silver trees that lit the world. When the Silmaril are stolen by Melkor, the Noldor swear an oath of revenge that is the running theme of the Silmarillion, and brings both glory and tragedy to the land of Middle-Earth.
Men: They are the ‘second born’ of Illuvatar, and are not as beautiful or as immortal as the Elves, but die of sickness and old age. They are initially not as advanced as the Elves either, technologically inferior, and banded together in tribal and family units. Some, however, link themselves to the Elvish kingdoms that spring up in Middle-earth and become allies of the Elves in their fight against Melkor. Others, such as Beren, even marry into the Elvish nobility, co-mingling the race of Men and the Race of Elves.
Dwarves: They are the sort of bastard race, created by one of the Valar, Illuvatar lets them live. They don’t seem to have much going on, except some brief contact with the Elves and Men, and their love of creating and of mining.
Plot: The Silmarillion is Tolkien’s REAL story; it is the story of how his world came to be and what shaped it. From the first creation story to the long and epic struggle of the Noldor Elves against Melkor and his minions for the Silmaril, it explains how things ended up the way they were at the beginning of The Hobbit, and The Lord of the Rings.
Themes: There are many, but a few include…
The Heroes Quest: Several characters within the stories must suffer the pangs of the hero’s quest, highlighted I think by Berin and Luthien’s story. Tolkien was trying to create a new mythos, and part of mythology is that struggle by a man, woman, or group to overcome great adversity to achieve something great. He does this again and again in his stories.
The Pull of Darkness: Many characters, from Elves to Humans, are sucked in by the allure of Melkor and great evil. These stories are always very tragic, with the person or persons finding out only later what the price is for their folly, sometimes with repercussions to be felt for generations to come. I think not only was this a theme borrowed from epic storytelling, but it was also a comment of Tolkien’s on what effect evil acts and deeds have on the generations that follow.
The Folly of War and Revenge: Remembering that Tolkien served in World War I, you see through all his stories, and especially the Silmarillion, that Tolkien has a distinct distaste for war. While it may be a glorious thing at time, and brave acts are committed, war is also the most destructive force on earth. Even the gods themselves had to get a higher power to intercede for them finally. The vicious cycle leaves everyone touched in the wake, and nothing is the same again.
Every book sucks somewhere: I have to say it, and I know there are those who hate hearing it, but there are some sucky parts to this book…I know. It’s tantamount to blasphemy in some quarters. But the book really is heavily bogged down. It lacks the smooth flow of The Hobbit in terms of storytelling, and it doesn’t clean up its massive amount of information, like in The Lord of the Rings. Part of this might be due in part to the fact that it is a bunch of different stories collected together by Christopher Tolkien after his father’s death, and wasn’t edited by JRR Tolkien himself. This leads the reader to get quickly confused and bored by the amount of stuff going on with no clear thread on which to settle on.
Also, Tolkien always does have the tendency of being quite heavy and English in his writings. I fell like I’m reading 19th century historical writings on the life of the Duke of Marlborough at times, (well, if the Duke of Marlborough was a Noldor Elf). Again, this could be due to the fact that the stories were in a constant state of shaping by Tolkien, but they lack the charm and humor of The Hobbit, and the gallantry of The Lord of the Rings.
It could just be that he was trying to mimic the folk-story voice used by many of the same tales he was trying to emulate in his works.
I also had a harder time connecting with any of these lovely characters he made in these stories. Perhaps because they aren’t as well known to me as Bilbo and Frodo, Gandalph, Aragorn and the rest, I felt a distinct disconnect from them. It was like being an American reading about some Central Asian empire in the Middle Ages, it’s a bunch of really neat sounding events, names, and places, but…well what do they all mean, really, and how does this connect back to me again. Self-centered as that thought might be, it made the book a bit less interesting.
What did I like: I love the world that Tolkien created to accompany his languages. This was the man who MADE fantasy what it is today. But unlike everyone else where he tried to create a world to fit a story, he was telling a story about a world he created. That world was every bit as real and vivid to him as ours is to us. There are very few other worlds that have been created like that, and it shows. Those that have, those are the ones that stick with us.
How would I rate this wormy book: I’d rate this book as a FAT worm. It’s a great book to read if you are a Tolkien fan and want to know more about his work and the background behind his more famous stories, (more like the more famous stories are extensions of this, as this was his real story). But a warning, if you aren’t prepared to be peppered with incomprehensible names and plot threads, don’t start with The Silmarillion. Read The Hobbit first and work from there.
How I found this book: I was born, and my father placed it in my hand, and said, “Daughter, you shall loveth thy Tolkien, and it shall be good in thy sight.” This sentence is only funny if you know my father’s a Southern Baptist Minister and a Tolkien freak. I’m surprised he doesn’t speak Elvish.
Setting: In the First and Second Ages of Middle-Earth, in other words, EONS before the happenings of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings.
Plot:
Main Characters:
There are many, but to highlight some of the more important ones….
Illuvatar: The ‘one god’ of this piece, if you wish you can call him/her/it God, Goddess, Allah, whatever, it’s never made clear, but it is supposed to be the originator of Middle-earth.
The Valar: A sort of pantheon of gods, they are more like angelic beings who went about creating the world in Illuvatar’s image, and now guide it. They are the beings whom the Elves seem to worship.
The Maiar: A lesser group of divine beings, also somewhat angelic in nature, who assist the Valar in the running of the world. One of note, Melian, wed an Elvish king, and is the mother of Luthien, one of the heroines of the stories. The wizards, such as Gandalf, are also Maiar.
Melkor: A rogue Valar, he has always wanted to work the world in his own way, and works against Illuvatar and the Valar. He’s the sort of Lucifer of the stories.
Sauron: One of the Maiar who is enlisted into Melkor’s service, he is perhaps the greatest of Melkor’s assistants, and helps bring the fall of Numenor. He is later the great evil of The Lord of the Rings stories.
Elves: They are the ‘first born’ of Illuvatar, and are immune to death by old age or disease, (though they can die by injury). They are brought to the land of the Valar from Middle Earth to be taught by the godlike beings, though not all of the Elves follow. This leads to the many nations of Elves that we find in the later stories. Of note are the Noldor, those who were craftsmen. It is they who create the Silmaril, gems that capture the light of the gold and silver trees that lit the world. When the Silmaril are stolen by Melkor, the Noldor swear an oath of revenge that is the running theme of the Silmarillion, and brings both glory and tragedy to the land of Middle-Earth.
Men: They are the ‘second born’ of Illuvatar, and are not as beautiful or as immortal as the Elves, but die of sickness and old age. They are initially not as advanced as the Elves either, technologically inferior, and banded together in tribal and family units. Some, however, link themselves to the Elvish kingdoms that spring up in Middle-earth and become allies of the Elves in their fight against Melkor. Others, such as Beren, even marry into the Elvish nobility, co-mingling the race of Men and the Race of Elves.
Dwarves: They are the sort of bastard race, created by one of the Valar, Illuvatar lets them live. They don’t seem to have much going on, except some brief contact with the Elves and Men, and their love of creating and of mining.
Plot: The Silmarillion is Tolkien’s REAL story; it is the story of how his world came to be and what shaped it. From the first creation story to the long and epic struggle of the Noldor Elves against Melkor and his minions for the Silmaril, it explains how things ended up the way they were at the beginning of The Hobbit, and The Lord of the Rings.
Themes: There are many, but a few include…
The Heroes Quest: Several characters within the stories must suffer the pangs of the hero’s quest, highlighted I think by Berin and Luthien’s story. Tolkien was trying to create a new mythos, and part of mythology is that struggle by a man, woman, or group to overcome great adversity to achieve something great. He does this again and again in his stories.
The Pull of Darkness: Many characters, from Elves to Humans, are sucked in by the allure of Melkor and great evil. These stories are always very tragic, with the person or persons finding out only later what the price is for their folly, sometimes with repercussions to be felt for generations to come. I think not only was this a theme borrowed from epic storytelling, but it was also a comment of Tolkien’s on what effect evil acts and deeds have on the generations that follow.
The Folly of War and Revenge: Remembering that Tolkien served in World War I, you see through all his stories, and especially the Silmarillion, that Tolkien has a distinct distaste for war. While it may be a glorious thing at time, and brave acts are committed, war is also the most destructive force on earth. Even the gods themselves had to get a higher power to intercede for them finally. The vicious cycle leaves everyone touched in the wake, and nothing is the same again.
Every book sucks somewhere: I have to say it, and I know there are those who hate hearing it, but there are some sucky parts to this book…I know. It’s tantamount to blasphemy in some quarters. But the book really is heavily bogged down. It lacks the smooth flow of The Hobbit in terms of storytelling, and it doesn’t clean up its massive amount of information, like in The Lord of the Rings. Part of this might be due in part to the fact that it is a bunch of different stories collected together by Christopher Tolkien after his father’s death, and wasn’t edited by JRR Tolkien himself. This leads the reader to get quickly confused and bored by the amount of stuff going on with no clear thread on which to settle on.
Also, Tolkien always does have the tendency of being quite heavy and English in his writings. I fell like I’m reading 19th century historical writings on the life of the Duke of Marlborough at times, (well, if the Duke of Marlborough was a Noldor Elf). Again, this could be due to the fact that the stories were in a constant state of shaping by Tolkien, but they lack the charm and humor of The Hobbit, and the gallantry of The Lord of the Rings.
It could just be that he was trying to mimic the folk-story voice used by many of the same tales he was trying to emulate in his works.
I also had a harder time connecting with any of these lovely characters he made in these stories. Perhaps because they aren’t as well known to me as Bilbo and Frodo, Gandalph, Aragorn and the rest, I felt a distinct disconnect from them. It was like being an American reading about some Central Asian empire in the Middle Ages, it’s a bunch of really neat sounding events, names, and places, but…well what do they all mean, really, and how does this connect back to me again. Self-centered as that thought might be, it made the book a bit less interesting.
What did I like: I love the world that Tolkien created to accompany his languages. This was the man who MADE fantasy what it is today. But unlike everyone else where he tried to create a world to fit a story, he was telling a story about a world he created. That world was every bit as real and vivid to him as ours is to us. There are very few other worlds that have been created like that, and it shows. Those that have, those are the ones that stick with us.
How would I rate this wormy book: I’d rate this book as a FAT worm. It’s a great book to read if you are a Tolkien fan and want to know more about his work and the background behind his more famous stories, (more like the more famous stories are extensions of this, as this was his real story). But a warning, if you aren’t prepared to be peppered with incomprehensible names and plot threads, don’t start with The Silmarillion. Read The Hobbit first and work from there.
Monday, March 10, 2008
The Parable of Miriam the Camel Driver
The Parable of Miriam the Camel Driver-Elizabeth (Murphy) Horner
How did I hear about this book: It was written by my friend Murphy, that's how I heard about it!
Setting: Ambigious desert-like area that is supposed to analagous to our own world and corporate setting.
Main Characters:
Miriam: A master lute player who works as a camel driver to survive
The overseer: Miriam's initial boss as a camel driver, he is cruel and lazy
The noble friend: Miriam's aid against the overseer, he helps her move to a different overseer.
The new overseer: Miriam's second boss, he proves to be false and as unwilling as the first boss to help her.
Plot: Miriam is a Master lute player who loves her art, but must survive somehow. She becomes an outstanding camel driver, and makes her living at it. But at the cost of losing herself, she drives at her work in a world that little appreciates the value of her efforts, nor cares to assist her in them.
Themes:
Slavery/Corporate America: Having known the backstory behind this book, this wasn't hard to see. Miriam lives in a world where her hard work, dedication, and perseverence are either scorned or ignored by those around her. She works harder, thinking somehow it will get better, but it never does. Corporate America, with all it's bureacracies fosters this idea of working hard with little to no reward for your efforts.
Staying true to yourself: Miriam is a Master Lute player, but finds herself giving up her lovely instrument more and more because of the demands of her job as a camel driver. She must learn the importance of staying true to yourself and what you love, and not let your job define every aspect of who you are.
Learning to let go: Miriam stays in her thankless position as a slave because of her fear of what letting go might mean. As a slave, she has everything provided for her, and has little in the way of needs. But if she leaves slavery, that means nothing is for sure in her life. Does one give that up? And at what price does security come?
The perfididy of your bosses: Miriam deals with some sleazy bosses, and every job has some. She learns to deal with them as she can, using her brains and wits to work out situations that benefit her work and herself, but in the end she realizes that sometimes, you just can't fight the system, no matter how noble your intentions.
Every book has to suck somewhere: The only sucky thing I found about the book really only comes from my personal knowledge of the author and some of the crap she's gone through. It's a veiled reference to her own sucky experiences at a particular company, and knowing that sort of detracted a bit from the 'parable' quality of it for me. But, for those who do not know the author personally, this book will I think carry a lot of meaning for them.
What did I like about the book: I think the author has a particular voice, especially when telling a parable like this, that draws you into the story and keeps you very engaged. Her voice is warm, friendly, and draws you in. It's so easy for stories like these to get either preachy or childish, and she refrains from doing either.
Rate this wormy book: I would rate this book as a MONSTER worm, a must read. For anyone whose ever had a bad job, or is stuck in corporate hell, you should read this book. This book reminds you that you don't have to be stuck in these positions, and that it's up to you to make your life worthwhile. Do not be defined by the drudgery that you are forced to do everyday! Remember you are a Master Lute Player as well as a camel driver, and that when you are consumed by your work over your life, perhaps it is time to stop.
How did I hear about this book: It was written by my friend Murphy, that's how I heard about it!
Setting: Ambigious desert-like area that is supposed to analagous to our own world and corporate setting.
Main Characters:
Miriam: A master lute player who works as a camel driver to survive
The overseer: Miriam's initial boss as a camel driver, he is cruel and lazy
The noble friend: Miriam's aid against the overseer, he helps her move to a different overseer.
The new overseer: Miriam's second boss, he proves to be false and as unwilling as the first boss to help her.
Plot: Miriam is a Master lute player who loves her art, but must survive somehow. She becomes an outstanding camel driver, and makes her living at it. But at the cost of losing herself, she drives at her work in a world that little appreciates the value of her efforts, nor cares to assist her in them.
Themes:
Slavery/Corporate America: Having known the backstory behind this book, this wasn't hard to see. Miriam lives in a world where her hard work, dedication, and perseverence are either scorned or ignored by those around her. She works harder, thinking somehow it will get better, but it never does. Corporate America, with all it's bureacracies fosters this idea of working hard with little to no reward for your efforts.
Staying true to yourself: Miriam is a Master Lute player, but finds herself giving up her lovely instrument more and more because of the demands of her job as a camel driver. She must learn the importance of staying true to yourself and what you love, and not let your job define every aspect of who you are.
Learning to let go: Miriam stays in her thankless position as a slave because of her fear of what letting go might mean. As a slave, she has everything provided for her, and has little in the way of needs. But if she leaves slavery, that means nothing is for sure in her life. Does one give that up? And at what price does security come?
The perfididy of your bosses: Miriam deals with some sleazy bosses, and every job has some. She learns to deal with them as she can, using her brains and wits to work out situations that benefit her work and herself, but in the end she realizes that sometimes, you just can't fight the system, no matter how noble your intentions.
Every book has to suck somewhere: The only sucky thing I found about the book really only comes from my personal knowledge of the author and some of the crap she's gone through. It's a veiled reference to her own sucky experiences at a particular company, and knowing that sort of detracted a bit from the 'parable' quality of it for me. But, for those who do not know the author personally, this book will I think carry a lot of meaning for them.
What did I like about the book: I think the author has a particular voice, especially when telling a parable like this, that draws you into the story and keeps you very engaged. Her voice is warm, friendly, and draws you in. It's so easy for stories like these to get either preachy or childish, and she refrains from doing either.
Rate this wormy book: I would rate this book as a MONSTER worm, a must read. For anyone whose ever had a bad job, or is stuck in corporate hell, you should read this book. This book reminds you that you don't have to be stuck in these positions, and that it's up to you to make your life worthwhile. Do not be defined by the drudgery that you are forced to do everyday! Remember you are a Master Lute Player as well as a camel driver, and that when you are consumed by your work over your life, perhaps it is time to stop.
Friday, March 7, 2008
Dry
Dry-Augustus Burroughs
How I found this book: One of my friend Megan’s suggestions, I found out about it shortly after hearing about the movie Running With Scissors.
Setting: New York City
Main Characters:
The Author: This is a memoir of Augustus Burroughs; so much of the action is scene through his eyes. He is an alcoholic who is self-centered, shallow, and needy, but who also has a troubled past and a humorous streak.
Pighead: Augustus’s one time lover, now his best friend, he is suffering from AIDS.
Foster: A fellow alcoholic Augustus meets at Alcoholic’s Anonymous, handsome, attractive, and self-destructive, Augustus finds himself attracted to him and ultimately gets drawn down because of it.
Hayden: One of Augustus’s friends from rehab, a Brit who is illegally in the US, he tries to keep himself and Augustus sober, even while August is playing with fire in the form of Foster.
Jim: Augustus’s drinking buddy.
Plot: Augustus Burroughs hates his job in advertising and is refusing to accept that his best friend and former lover is dying of AIDS. So like any rational human being, he decides to get piss drunk, all the time. When his co-workers call him on it, he ships himself off to rehab, where he gets sober all right. But once out, he lacks the emotional securities that rehab granted him, and it’s a much different and bigger world back in New York sober than it was drunk. When Foster enters his life, he is drawn to the self-destructive, yet devastatingly handsome man, thinking it is something that he can handle. But Augustus’s world comes crashing down on him when his best friend succumbs to his disease, and the staying ‘dry’ just doesn’t offer him enough of a comfort when things are falling apart.
Themes:
Addiction and the emotionally broken: Augustus in his previous memoir makes no bones about how messed up he is emotionally, and in Dry, he uses it to explain how his alcoholism is his crutch to prop up the bits of him that are barely hanging together as it is. But rather than using it to control his life, Augustus finds that his addiction is controlling him, and he doesn’t particularly care much until he hits rock bottom.
Denial of death: Augustus relationships in his life with his mother and others have been, in the technical terminology, ‘fucked up’. It’s not very surprising he has a hard time with losing people in his life, and an even harder time coming to terms with the death of someone he was afraid to admit he loved so dearly. What seems self-centered and shallow, (and is, in its way), is his coping mechanism for the fact that he is terrified and heartbroken at the thought of loving someone who he cared for so deeply and who didn’t try to fuck him over.
Obsession and love: Part of addiction is your obsession for something to fill a need. Obsession isn’t limited to a drug or an emotional rush for an addict, but can be obsession with someone who you are attracted to as well. It’s hard to tell the different between love for that person and obsession, and often times the two are mixed. You don’t realize till too late, in Augustus’s case only when he realized that this person was self-destructive and was dragging Augustus along for the ride.
Recovery isn’t an easy fix: Addiction is something that people will suffer from their entire lives; it doesn’t go away with a quick stint in rehab and a pill. It’s an everyday, conscious process that allows a person to function, though they will never approach their particular addiction in anything like a normal fashion. You have to just keep picking up the pieces and keep on going, living life day by day, and setting your expectations so high you set yourself up for failure.
Every book sucks somewhere: If I had to find a sucky bit in the book, it would be that Augustus is so wonderfully, but totally, self-centered. I think it’s actually part of the point of the books, to show the author for how he sees himself. While it did make me laugh a lot, it was also, I feel, coming off a bit stereo-typical for both a New Yorker and a homosexual. It just could be that way cause the author is both, but it was nearly campy in some spots.
What did I like: Everything! I found this book to be humorous, sad, and touching at the same time. While it could be really easy to hate Augustus for being a callous, selfish bitch, he comes off with a vulnerability that makes you understand the underlying neuroses that make him who he is. He does this with a wit and self-deprecating humor that cuts through most of the harshness of his character, and makes him a very relatable person.
How would I rate this wormy book: I’d give it a FAT WORM, I want to give it a MONSTER worm, but I think that for some, less-open minded readers, frank discussion about alcoholism, homosexuality, drug use, or even AIDS might get them too worked up, so if you have any issues with any of that, (and frankly I don’t), then this isn’t the book for you. I know too many people who get caught up in all of that with Augustus Burroughs work, so if it's something you aren't comfortable with, don't read it. But if you like a dry, witty, humorous look at a person’s personal fight with his own addiction, that brings it home as both very sad and heart wrenching, but so very human, read this book. I loved it.
How I found this book: One of my friend Megan’s suggestions, I found out about it shortly after hearing about the movie Running With Scissors.
Setting: New York City
Main Characters:
The Author: This is a memoir of Augustus Burroughs; so much of the action is scene through his eyes. He is an alcoholic who is self-centered, shallow, and needy, but who also has a troubled past and a humorous streak.
Pighead: Augustus’s one time lover, now his best friend, he is suffering from AIDS.
Foster: A fellow alcoholic Augustus meets at Alcoholic’s Anonymous, handsome, attractive, and self-destructive, Augustus finds himself attracted to him and ultimately gets drawn down because of it.
Hayden: One of Augustus’s friends from rehab, a Brit who is illegally in the US, he tries to keep himself and Augustus sober, even while August is playing with fire in the form of Foster.
Jim: Augustus’s drinking buddy.
Plot: Augustus Burroughs hates his job in advertising and is refusing to accept that his best friend and former lover is dying of AIDS. So like any rational human being, he decides to get piss drunk, all the time. When his co-workers call him on it, he ships himself off to rehab, where he gets sober all right. But once out, he lacks the emotional securities that rehab granted him, and it’s a much different and bigger world back in New York sober than it was drunk. When Foster enters his life, he is drawn to the self-destructive, yet devastatingly handsome man, thinking it is something that he can handle. But Augustus’s world comes crashing down on him when his best friend succumbs to his disease, and the staying ‘dry’ just doesn’t offer him enough of a comfort when things are falling apart.
Themes:
Addiction and the emotionally broken: Augustus in his previous memoir makes no bones about how messed up he is emotionally, and in Dry, he uses it to explain how his alcoholism is his crutch to prop up the bits of him that are barely hanging together as it is. But rather than using it to control his life, Augustus finds that his addiction is controlling him, and he doesn’t particularly care much until he hits rock bottom.
Denial of death: Augustus relationships in his life with his mother and others have been, in the technical terminology, ‘fucked up’. It’s not very surprising he has a hard time with losing people in his life, and an even harder time coming to terms with the death of someone he was afraid to admit he loved so dearly. What seems self-centered and shallow, (and is, in its way), is his coping mechanism for the fact that he is terrified and heartbroken at the thought of loving someone who he cared for so deeply and who didn’t try to fuck him over.
Obsession and love: Part of addiction is your obsession for something to fill a need. Obsession isn’t limited to a drug or an emotional rush for an addict, but can be obsession with someone who you are attracted to as well. It’s hard to tell the different between love for that person and obsession, and often times the two are mixed. You don’t realize till too late, in Augustus’s case only when he realized that this person was self-destructive and was dragging Augustus along for the ride.
Recovery isn’t an easy fix: Addiction is something that people will suffer from their entire lives; it doesn’t go away with a quick stint in rehab and a pill. It’s an everyday, conscious process that allows a person to function, though they will never approach their particular addiction in anything like a normal fashion. You have to just keep picking up the pieces and keep on going, living life day by day, and setting your expectations so high you set yourself up for failure.
Every book sucks somewhere: If I had to find a sucky bit in the book, it would be that Augustus is so wonderfully, but totally, self-centered. I think it’s actually part of the point of the books, to show the author for how he sees himself. While it did make me laugh a lot, it was also, I feel, coming off a bit stereo-typical for both a New Yorker and a homosexual. It just could be that way cause the author is both, but it was nearly campy in some spots.
What did I like: Everything! I found this book to be humorous, sad, and touching at the same time. While it could be really easy to hate Augustus for being a callous, selfish bitch, he comes off with a vulnerability that makes you understand the underlying neuroses that make him who he is. He does this with a wit and self-deprecating humor that cuts through most of the harshness of his character, and makes him a very relatable person.
How would I rate this wormy book: I’d give it a FAT WORM, I want to give it a MONSTER worm, but I think that for some, less-open minded readers, frank discussion about alcoholism, homosexuality, drug use, or even AIDS might get them too worked up, so if you have any issues with any of that, (and frankly I don’t), then this isn’t the book for you. I know too many people who get caught up in all of that with Augustus Burroughs work, so if it's something you aren't comfortable with, don't read it. But if you like a dry, witty, humorous look at a person’s personal fight with his own addiction, that brings it home as both very sad and heart wrenching, but so very human, read this book. I loved it.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
In the Shadow of the Crown
In the Shadow of the Crown-Jean Plaidy
How I found this book: Bridget, (one of my many William Jewell friends, referred to by me as the ‘Jewell gang’), gave this to me two years ago for my birthday. Being a history dork, this is usually a very brilliant idea. Too bad it isn't nearly as sexed up as The Tudors
I must admit, the author, (who also goes by Victoria Holt), was a guilty pleasure of mine as a child, I LOOOVED her bad romances. I can’t say it was a healthy or good obsession, but it was better than the Harlequin’s I insisted on stuffing into my brain.
Setting: 16th century England, during the reigns of Henry VIII, Edward VI, and Mary I.
Main Characters:
Mary Tudor, Princess of Wales: The oldest child of Henry VIII with his first wife, Katherine of Aragon, she is the focus of the story.
Henry VIII, King of England: Mary’s father, he has a bit of a problem keeping his wives around, can’t seem to produce healthy or live children, but manages to have three of them, all of whom will rule after him.
Katherine of Aragon: The first wife of Henry VIII, is apparently very saintly in the eyes of Mary, is cast aside cruelly by Henry in favor of Anne Boleyn.
Anne Boleyn: The second wife of Henry VIII and mother of Elizabeth I, she is cruel and vicious towards Mary, depriving her of the titles and rank that she has enjoyed for much of her life, (or at least Mary sees it that way). Anne will die after she is accused of being unfaithful to the king.
Elizabeth Tudor: The second daughter of Henry VIII by his second wife, Anne Boleyn, Mary sees her as scheming and wise beyond her years, but in her own odd way loves and admires her sister.
Jane Seymor: The third wife of Henry VIII, mother of Edward VI. She dies shortly after providing Henry with his much looked for son.
Anne of Cleves: The fourth wife of Henry VIII, a sympathetic character in the eyes of Mary. She is set aside because Henry finds her disagreeable, and has his marriage annulled.
Katherine Howard: The fifth wife of Henry VIII, young and idiotic, she is killed after having a fling with her lover, supposedly.
Catherine Parr: Henry VIII final wife, she is a devout Protestant, but Mary seems to warm to her despite this as she honestly does try to make Henry’s children into a family with their tyrannical father.
Reginald Cardinal Pole: Mary’s childhood sweetheart, he is her ardent supporter of her Catholic policies when she attains the throne.
Phillip II of Spain: Mary’s husband, whom she adores and believes will give her a son and heir to England.
Plot: Mary Tudor, Princess of Wales, seems to have a brilliant childhood, raised in the glittering court of her father, Henry VIII of England. But things change swiftly for her, and Mary, who is loyal both to her faith and to her mother, comes at odds with her tyrannical father, her many stepmothers and the officials of her father’s court who see Mary as a Catholic threat to the throne. She loses both her position and her place, but stays true to what she believes, until the day that she is given what belonged to her by birthright, the throne of England, and becomes the first ruling queen in England since Empress Maude, (who technically was never crowned, thus there can be an argument that Mary is the first ruling queen in England).
Themes:
The Many Wives of Windsor: Henry went through wives like most people change underwear, this has been no secret. Each new wife had its only upheavels and intrigues to the court, each of which Mary must learn to deal with as her respect for her father drains.
Protestant/Catholic in 16th century England: This was a serious political debate in much of Europe at the time, including England. In a period when the Church was as much a political as a spiritual power, the influence of Rome in a country could make or break a growing power. The tug and pull of the different sides in Henry, Edward, and later Mary’s court have real and often deadly political side effects.
Mary vs. Elizabeth: Well, being that this book is written from Mary’s viewpoint, we can tell who is coming out the victim in all of this. But Mary does seem to have an affection for the brilliant little girl who has all her father’s magnetism and all her mother’s cunning. Mary at least appears to try to forgive Elizabeth her accident of birth. Whether that really happened in history, it’s hard to say, but Mary seems to carry on as if their later rivalry had more to do with politics than hard feelings on Mary’s part over the conflict between their mothers.
Mary’s failing health: Mary in history really was a sickly child. In the story, she just seems to be in denial about it all, but then, it is 16th century medicine, she may have been told it was nothing to worry about.
Every book sucks somewhere: And boy did this one suck a lot. Not that I’m for historical novels that trump up sex and violence just to get a good story out of it, but lets face it, Mary Tudor was BORING! Only slightly better than a nun in some respects, Jean Plaidy does little to make Mary an engaging character for the reader. She seems so much less the sum of her brilliant parents’ parts, (especially the shining Henry, who despite his problems was as charismatic as you get). I mean, she's the grand-daughter of the King of England who ended the War of the Roses, and the two Spanish monarchs who united Aragon and Castille, Ferdinand and Isabella, the politico and the Catholic Warrior Queen. And there is Mary, who seems like such a whining, self-righteous toe-rag. While she is brilliant and smart and courageous in these pages, she comes off as priggish, self-righteous, and to prone to martyr herself in the most annoying of fashions. If this was supposed to be a sympathetic look at a woman who in English history was labeled, ‘Bloody Mary’, well it really didn’t do her a lot of justice.
I think Mary in this novel suffers the fate of her younger brother Edward in many ways, in that she is sandwiched between the glittering reign of her father and the magnificent reign of her sister Elizabeth, and comes out looking like a pale shadow compared to both. And no matter how much you try to dress that up, it just doesn’t come out right.
Personally, if you are looking for fun with the Tudors, watch the show on Showtime, or read/watch The Other Boleyn Girl. Sure, it’s about as historically accurate as an Oliver Stone movie, but it’s got tons of smex and really hot guys playing Henry, (hey, isn’t the dude supposed to be getting up there both in years and weight?)
What did I like: The History…I eat it with a spoon. There are details Plaidy brings up here that I’m not aware of myself, (though admittedly the Tudors aren’t my specialty). She seems to at least pay half attention to the historical details.
How would I rate this wormy book: I’d rate this LITTLE WORM, it’s really not interesting enough on its own to really make it a worthy read. Mary is just too annoying for me to ever care about as a person. But if you want to read a story on Mary’s side of things, give it a whirl; you might like it better than I do.
How I found this book: Bridget, (one of my many William Jewell friends, referred to by me as the ‘Jewell gang’), gave this to me two years ago for my birthday. Being a history dork, this is usually a very brilliant idea. Too bad it isn't nearly as sexed up as The Tudors
I must admit, the author, (who also goes by Victoria Holt), was a guilty pleasure of mine as a child, I LOOOVED her bad romances. I can’t say it was a healthy or good obsession, but it was better than the Harlequin’s I insisted on stuffing into my brain.
Setting: 16th century England, during the reigns of Henry VIII, Edward VI, and Mary I.
Main Characters:
Mary Tudor, Princess of Wales: The oldest child of Henry VIII with his first wife, Katherine of Aragon, she is the focus of the story.
Henry VIII, King of England: Mary’s father, he has a bit of a problem keeping his wives around, can’t seem to produce healthy or live children, but manages to have three of them, all of whom will rule after him.
Katherine of Aragon: The first wife of Henry VIII, is apparently very saintly in the eyes of Mary, is cast aside cruelly by Henry in favor of Anne Boleyn.
Anne Boleyn: The second wife of Henry VIII and mother of Elizabeth I, she is cruel and vicious towards Mary, depriving her of the titles and rank that she has enjoyed for much of her life, (or at least Mary sees it that way). Anne will die after she is accused of being unfaithful to the king.
Elizabeth Tudor: The second daughter of Henry VIII by his second wife, Anne Boleyn, Mary sees her as scheming and wise beyond her years, but in her own odd way loves and admires her sister.
Jane Seymor: The third wife of Henry VIII, mother of Edward VI. She dies shortly after providing Henry with his much looked for son.
Anne of Cleves: The fourth wife of Henry VIII, a sympathetic character in the eyes of Mary. She is set aside because Henry finds her disagreeable, and has his marriage annulled.
Katherine Howard: The fifth wife of Henry VIII, young and idiotic, she is killed after having a fling with her lover, supposedly.
Catherine Parr: Henry VIII final wife, she is a devout Protestant, but Mary seems to warm to her despite this as she honestly does try to make Henry’s children into a family with their tyrannical father.
Reginald Cardinal Pole: Mary’s childhood sweetheart, he is her ardent supporter of her Catholic policies when she attains the throne.
Phillip II of Spain: Mary’s husband, whom she adores and believes will give her a son and heir to England.
Plot: Mary Tudor, Princess of Wales, seems to have a brilliant childhood, raised in the glittering court of her father, Henry VIII of England. But things change swiftly for her, and Mary, who is loyal both to her faith and to her mother, comes at odds with her tyrannical father, her many stepmothers and the officials of her father’s court who see Mary as a Catholic threat to the throne. She loses both her position and her place, but stays true to what she believes, until the day that she is given what belonged to her by birthright, the throne of England, and becomes the first ruling queen in England since Empress Maude, (who technically was never crowned, thus there can be an argument that Mary is the first ruling queen in England).
Themes:
The Many Wives of Windsor: Henry went through wives like most people change underwear, this has been no secret. Each new wife had its only upheavels and intrigues to the court, each of which Mary must learn to deal with as her respect for her father drains.
Protestant/Catholic in 16th century England: This was a serious political debate in much of Europe at the time, including England. In a period when the Church was as much a political as a spiritual power, the influence of Rome in a country could make or break a growing power. The tug and pull of the different sides in Henry, Edward, and later Mary’s court have real and often deadly political side effects.
Mary vs. Elizabeth: Well, being that this book is written from Mary’s viewpoint, we can tell who is coming out the victim in all of this. But Mary does seem to have an affection for the brilliant little girl who has all her father’s magnetism and all her mother’s cunning. Mary at least appears to try to forgive Elizabeth her accident of birth. Whether that really happened in history, it’s hard to say, but Mary seems to carry on as if their later rivalry had more to do with politics than hard feelings on Mary’s part over the conflict between their mothers.
Mary’s failing health: Mary in history really was a sickly child. In the story, she just seems to be in denial about it all, but then, it is 16th century medicine, she may have been told it was nothing to worry about.
Every book sucks somewhere: And boy did this one suck a lot. Not that I’m for historical novels that trump up sex and violence just to get a good story out of it, but lets face it, Mary Tudor was BORING! Only slightly better than a nun in some respects, Jean Plaidy does little to make Mary an engaging character for the reader. She seems so much less the sum of her brilliant parents’ parts, (especially the shining Henry, who despite his problems was as charismatic as you get). I mean, she's the grand-daughter of the King of England who ended the War of the Roses, and the two Spanish monarchs who united Aragon and Castille, Ferdinand and Isabella, the politico and the Catholic Warrior Queen. And there is Mary, who seems like such a whining, self-righteous toe-rag. While she is brilliant and smart and courageous in these pages, she comes off as priggish, self-righteous, and to prone to martyr herself in the most annoying of fashions. If this was supposed to be a sympathetic look at a woman who in English history was labeled, ‘Bloody Mary’, well it really didn’t do her a lot of justice.
I think Mary in this novel suffers the fate of her younger brother Edward in many ways, in that she is sandwiched between the glittering reign of her father and the magnificent reign of her sister Elizabeth, and comes out looking like a pale shadow compared to both. And no matter how much you try to dress that up, it just doesn’t come out right.
Personally, if you are looking for fun with the Tudors, watch the show on Showtime, or read/watch The Other Boleyn Girl. Sure, it’s about as historically accurate as an Oliver Stone movie, but it’s got tons of smex and really hot guys playing Henry, (hey, isn’t the dude supposed to be getting up there both in years and weight?)
What did I like: The History…I eat it with a spoon. There are details Plaidy brings up here that I’m not aware of myself, (though admittedly the Tudors aren’t my specialty). She seems to at least pay half attention to the historical details.
How would I rate this wormy book: I’d rate this LITTLE WORM, it’s really not interesting enough on its own to really make it a worthy read. Mary is just too annoying for me to ever care about as a person. But if you want to read a story on Mary’s side of things, give it a whirl; you might like it better than I do.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Holy Land
Holy Land-D.J. Waldie
How I found this book: There are many books in my collection that I was forced to purchase for class. This one is one of the few I actually read, it was for a class on Los Angeles History I took at UCLA.
Setting: Lakewood, CA, late 20th century
Main Characters:
The Author: D.J. Waldie is writing his memoirs. So the other characters are various, people who come and go through the recollection of his memories. But the main character is actually Waldie himself.
Plot: The city of Lakewood is literally created out of an empty space. It’s one of the typical track housing neighborhoods built in the post-World War II era, when people longed for the security of the American Dream, and thought that living in suburbia would give it to them. Their lives aren’t as clean and assembly-line neat as the houses that they move into, and behind the cookie-cutter facades problems such as racism, marital abuse, depression, and isolation still are there. On the outside, Lakewood is growing into a suburban mecca, determined to keep itself apart from the much larger, multi-ethnic, and heavily urbanized Los Angeles, but still dependent on the larger metropolitan area for its own survival. And not all of Lakewood’s neighborhoods, such as the wealthy ones in bordering Long Beach, are particularly happy to see the influx of hard-working suburban types trying to inch in on their own idea of what it is to live the good life.
Themes:
Racism and exclusion: Waldie portrays a community in Southern California that is both inclusionist, in the sense that Lakewood’s largest population are Catholics and Jews, traditionally excluded in many nicer neighborhoods. But blacks and Latinos are not a presence at that time at all, (though I’m fairly certain that Latinos compromise a larger part of the community now at days). Furthermore, the rich in Long Beach deliberately segregate themselves from the growing Middle Class in Lakewood. There is a sense of racial and economic divide that still permeates Los Angeles to this day.
The failure of “The American Dream”-Waldie’s neighborhood isn’t populated by the Flinstones of the Cleavers. It’s populated with the woman who believes the government is digging under her house. It’s home to aircraft builders who worked till the day they died, never making enough to retire comfortably in their old age and enjoy their homes. There is the man who commits suicide, and others who find that the American Dream just didn’t quite work out for them the way it was supposed to. The suburbs are filled with the leftovers of those dreamers, watching as their children go off to fight in a war that epitomizes how the American Dream has failed.
The fabrication of American lives post-World War II: Waldie sees these suburban neighborhoods as places where people can live in pre-planned organization, a way of herding the American populace into order. The city was planned to center around a mall, the dry-cleaners and pharmacies were put within walking distance of the houses. Even the city ordinances had laws about what type of trees to plant and how to keep them maintained. But Waldie doesn’t just decry this as being unnatural, or forced, but as a way that neighbors in this planned community are forced to see one another closely, to see themselves for all their faults and accept it. People live so close together they can hear discussions and fights, neighborhood kids run together in gangs over the summers in order to amuse themselves, these forced lines created by the planners of the area are ways in which people can touch each others lives. But Waldie does note that as time goes on, these lines connect people less and less, and the community spirit of the neighborhood starts to fall apart.
Every book sucks somewhere: I don’t have a sucky point per se, really I do have a warning. This book isn’t written in normal chapter style, or in linear style. This is a free flowing piece, with chapters that follow chapters that don’t necessarily have much to do with one another, or story threads that bounce about from one chapter to another three chapters later. I don’t mind, I think it adds to the story, but if you are bothered by it, perhaps it isn’t a read for you.
What did I like: I loved that this was a very realistic and frank look at suburbanization in Post World War II America and what it meant for the average, middle-class American. It didn’t romanticize it in the way that books and shows of the period did, nor did it try to deconstruct it like so many other books and movies have done since, but tried to look at it through the very real experiences of someone who lived it and was sharing what they knew about and remembered.
I also like that Waldie did indeed go into the background of Lakewood, which I think is just as important as the experiences there. The historian in me likes to know why and where social-phenomenon came from, and to see that Waldie unflinchingly reports the political and social history of his city without romanticizing it really scored points with me.
How would I rate this wormy book: I’d give it a FAT WORM. Really only history majors and those interested in city development or Los Angeles culture would ever get into a book like this. But it’s a good one if you are, I highly recommend it, and it shows a small section of the ‘boom’ that LA experienced, (one of many), in the years after the second World War.
How I found this book: There are many books in my collection that I was forced to purchase for class. This one is one of the few I actually read, it was for a class on Los Angeles History I took at UCLA.
Setting: Lakewood, CA, late 20th century
Main Characters:
The Author: D.J. Waldie is writing his memoirs. So the other characters are various, people who come and go through the recollection of his memories. But the main character is actually Waldie himself.
Plot: The city of Lakewood is literally created out of an empty space. It’s one of the typical track housing neighborhoods built in the post-World War II era, when people longed for the security of the American Dream, and thought that living in suburbia would give it to them. Their lives aren’t as clean and assembly-line neat as the houses that they move into, and behind the cookie-cutter facades problems such as racism, marital abuse, depression, and isolation still are there. On the outside, Lakewood is growing into a suburban mecca, determined to keep itself apart from the much larger, multi-ethnic, and heavily urbanized Los Angeles, but still dependent on the larger metropolitan area for its own survival. And not all of Lakewood’s neighborhoods, such as the wealthy ones in bordering Long Beach, are particularly happy to see the influx of hard-working suburban types trying to inch in on their own idea of what it is to live the good life.
Themes:
Racism and exclusion: Waldie portrays a community in Southern California that is both inclusionist, in the sense that Lakewood’s largest population are Catholics and Jews, traditionally excluded in many nicer neighborhoods. But blacks and Latinos are not a presence at that time at all, (though I’m fairly certain that Latinos compromise a larger part of the community now at days). Furthermore, the rich in Long Beach deliberately segregate themselves from the growing Middle Class in Lakewood. There is a sense of racial and economic divide that still permeates Los Angeles to this day.
The failure of “The American Dream”-Waldie’s neighborhood isn’t populated by the Flinstones of the Cleavers. It’s populated with the woman who believes the government is digging under her house. It’s home to aircraft builders who worked till the day they died, never making enough to retire comfortably in their old age and enjoy their homes. There is the man who commits suicide, and others who find that the American Dream just didn’t quite work out for them the way it was supposed to. The suburbs are filled with the leftovers of those dreamers, watching as their children go off to fight in a war that epitomizes how the American Dream has failed.
The fabrication of American lives post-World War II: Waldie sees these suburban neighborhoods as places where people can live in pre-planned organization, a way of herding the American populace into order. The city was planned to center around a mall, the dry-cleaners and pharmacies were put within walking distance of the houses. Even the city ordinances had laws about what type of trees to plant and how to keep them maintained. But Waldie doesn’t just decry this as being unnatural, or forced, but as a way that neighbors in this planned community are forced to see one another closely, to see themselves for all their faults and accept it. People live so close together they can hear discussions and fights, neighborhood kids run together in gangs over the summers in order to amuse themselves, these forced lines created by the planners of the area are ways in which people can touch each others lives. But Waldie does note that as time goes on, these lines connect people less and less, and the community spirit of the neighborhood starts to fall apart.
Every book sucks somewhere: I don’t have a sucky point per se, really I do have a warning. This book isn’t written in normal chapter style, or in linear style. This is a free flowing piece, with chapters that follow chapters that don’t necessarily have much to do with one another, or story threads that bounce about from one chapter to another three chapters later. I don’t mind, I think it adds to the story, but if you are bothered by it, perhaps it isn’t a read for you.
What did I like: I loved that this was a very realistic and frank look at suburbanization in Post World War II America and what it meant for the average, middle-class American. It didn’t romanticize it in the way that books and shows of the period did, nor did it try to deconstruct it like so many other books and movies have done since, but tried to look at it through the very real experiences of someone who lived it and was sharing what they knew about and remembered.
I also like that Waldie did indeed go into the background of Lakewood, which I think is just as important as the experiences there. The historian in me likes to know why and where social-phenomenon came from, and to see that Waldie unflinchingly reports the political and social history of his city without romanticizing it really scored points with me.
How would I rate this wormy book: I’d give it a FAT WORM. Really only history majors and those interested in city development or Los Angeles culture would ever get into a book like this. But it’s a good one if you are, I highly recommend it, and it shows a small section of the ‘boom’ that LA experienced, (one of many), in the years after the second World War.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
