Books, films, and general observations
Feb. 16th, 2008 08:18 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
alobearHmm - I just used an Oxford comma in the title of this post without thinking about it - I believe I usually do.
Anway, I am currently very busy at work, which has meant the loss of my lunch hour, and thus 40 minutes of my usual reading time per day - eek! So, I don't think I'll be reaching 104 books this year. However, I seem to be inadvertently compensating for this by reading particularly short books, which I suppose could be construed as cheating - but I don't really care!
The general observation part of this post has to do with a poster I saw the other day for Lost. It said in giant letters across the top - "ANSWERS ARE COMING", to which I responded with a derisive snort and a, "Yeah, right!" J J Abrams has a mystery box of magic tricks that he bought as a child and has not opened in fifteen years. I read an article about him, in which one of the production crew on Lost said that he is much more interested in the concept of a mystery than in the explanation of it. And, as I understand it, nothing was explained in Cloverfield. I think it's time we all came to terms with the fact that Lost is never going to become clear. Now, this doesn't bother me in the slightest - unusually for me, I'm happy with the mystery of Lost just being a mystery - but I know an awful lot of people who won't be nearly as content!
On to the reviews:
Anway, I am currently very busy at work, which has meant the loss of my lunch hour, and thus 40 minutes of my usual reading time per day - eek! So, I don't think I'll be reaching 104 books this year. However, I seem to be inadvertently compensating for this by reading particularly short books, which I suppose could be construed as cheating - but I don't really care!
The general observation part of this post has to do with a poster I saw the other day for Lost. It said in giant letters across the top - "ANSWERS ARE COMING", to which I responded with a derisive snort and a, "Yeah, right!" J J Abrams has a mystery box of magic tricks that he bought as a child and has not opened in fifteen years. I read an article about him, in which one of the production crew on Lost said that he is much more interested in the concept of a mystery than in the explanation of it. And, as I understand it, nothing was explained in Cloverfield. I think it's time we all came to terms with the fact that Lost is never going to become clear. Now, this doesn't bother me in the slightest - unusually for me, I'm happy with the mystery of Lost just being a mystery - but I know an awful lot of people who won't be nearly as content!
On to the reviews:
Heinlein:
I'm much more of a fantasy fan than a science fiction fan, and the little science fiction of the 50s that I read when I was younger put me off trying any more. However, over the course of a few weeks, Dave mentioned Tunnel In The Sky by Robert Heinlein in several conversations, and it sounded interesting so I thought I'd give it a try. I'm glad I did, as I thoroughly enjoyed it. I've always liked the plotline of "disparate group of people stranded somewhere have to work together to survive" and this was an excellent instance of it. It remined me very much of Anne McCaffrey's Freedom's Landing, though shorter and simpler. Since the majority of the book is set on a tropical planet, where the protagonists have to set up a society with only their knowledge and no equipment, it really didn't feel much like hard science fiction. The dismissive attitude of the adults towards the kids' achievements at the end annoyed me as much as it annoyed the hero, but I can see why it had to be that way, so overall an excellent read.
Coelho:
On Wednesday, I was sitting outside the office, desperately trying to finish Tunnel In The Sky before it was time to meet friends in the pub, when a homeless man came up to me and offered me a book. He said he'd finished it and thought I might enjoy it, then wandered off before I had a chance to say or do anything. The book was The Alchemist by Paulo Coelho. Dave didn't want me to read it, as he said it sounded like the start of a bad 80s fantasy show, and was worried I might be transported to another world as soon as I opened the book. What actually happened was that I read something very interesting that made me reflect on a lot of things. I do not say this because the book itself had an impact on me, but rather because it didn't. It's not really a novel - most of the characters are not given names (the boy, the old man, the Englishman, the Gypsy), which makes them archetypes rather than characters, and reinforces the sense that it's actually more of a self-help book than a story. The majority of it involves various characters giving the boy their opinions on the best way to achieve happiness. It's all about listening to omens, identifying your destiny, and following your dreams - one phrase that is repeated many times throughout the book is "when you want something, all the universe conspires in helping you to achieve it" - and I can easily see how a certain kind of person might find it life-altering if they hadn't already thought about these kinds of things. However, I've spent a great deal of time thinking about what kind of person I want to be, and how I want to live my life, and nothing in The Alchemist was new to me, or of any great use. I don't subscribe to most of its teachings, but it was still an interesting book to read.
There were two particularly interesting points in the book. One was a story told to the boy by the old man he meets at the beginning. It had to do with another boy, who visited a wise man and asked him the secret of happiness. The wise man gave the boy a spoon containing a few drops of oil, and told him to wander the castle for two hours and then come back without having spilt the oil. The boy does so, but fails to see any of the wonders of the castle. The wise man then tells him to wander the castle again and take note of the wonders. The boy does so, but spills the oil. The conclusion of the story is that, "The secret of happiness is to see all the marvels of the world, and never to forget the drops of oil on the spoon." Now, that is a theory I can certainly subscribe to - and I believe I largely achieve it.
The second thing is that the only character designated by a name rather than a generic description is the girl the boy meets in the desert, and with whom he falls in love. Giving her a name immediately makes her an individual, and gives the climax of the book a much more personal feel. I was actually growing rather bored by the endless treatises on destiny by the last few pages, but the introduction of the love story and the individuality of the girl revitalised my interest in the story and made me want to find out what happened to them in the end.
Spark:
A while ago, Dave sent me an article about characterisation in fiction, which was really interesting. In it, one particular fictional character was mentioned over and over again, and it was someone from a book I'd never heard of - The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie by Muriel Spark. Intrigued, I ordered the book from Amazon and read it last night and this morning. It's an odd book, about a teacher who tells her students stories about her life and the world rather than teaching them maths and grammar. It's quirky and rather strange, but intriguing and thought-provoking. The plot is about the revealing of which girl it was who betrayed Miss Brodie to the headmistress and caused her to be forced into retirement. The structure is very effective, in that it tells the story of the girls' years under Miss Brodie's instruction, interspersed with flashes forward to what happens to all of them in later life. Thus, it builds the story like a jumbled jigsaw, and it's very cleverly put together. It's about growing up, and the way in which people's opinions about things change over time, and how people influence you when you are young. Slightly odd, but very good.
Bell:
Dave and I went to see Jumper at the cinema last night. I deliberately disengaged my brain as the film began, and had difficulty relocating it at the end. The film had its moments, but my one-word review would be "adolescent".
In greater detail, I liked the concept, but I didn't think it was explored to its full potential. It was largely nonsense, and I had less than no interest in the main character - Haydn Christensen really hasn't gotten any better at the whole acting lark and seemed utterly devoid of any kind of personality. The first thing that really annoyed me was when he jumped onto the clock face of Big Ben - he was holding onto the minute hand, which was at 32 minutes past the hour - and yet the clock chimed the hour while he was standing there - grrrr! Still the special effects were very good and there were several excellent action sequences - though they were almost completely ruined by the modern directing technique of putting the camera right next to the actors and then shaking it about so it's impossible to see what's going on.
The only thing that really made the film worth watching was Jamie Bell, and he wasn't in it nearly enough. I thought his character was fascinating, and that he portrayed Griffin extremely well. I liked the fact that he was using his normal Sheffield accent, and I liked the fact that the film gave certain small but very affecting insights into his character (such as taking a corpse back to his lair so that he would have someone to talk to), and I would really like to see a film based around him. Why is it that the interesting characters in these films are almost exclusively the supporting characters, and that the "hero" could generally be replaced by a piece of plywood and nobody would notice?
Overall, certainly not high on my list of great movies - but I would be prepared to watch a sequel in the hopes that the various interesting things about it would be developed further.
I'm much more of a fantasy fan than a science fiction fan, and the little science fiction of the 50s that I read when I was younger put me off trying any more. However, over the course of a few weeks, Dave mentioned Tunnel In The Sky by Robert Heinlein in several conversations, and it sounded interesting so I thought I'd give it a try. I'm glad I did, as I thoroughly enjoyed it. I've always liked the plotline of "disparate group of people stranded somewhere have to work together to survive" and this was an excellent instance of it. It remined me very much of Anne McCaffrey's Freedom's Landing, though shorter and simpler. Since the majority of the book is set on a tropical planet, where the protagonists have to set up a society with only their knowledge and no equipment, it really didn't feel much like hard science fiction. The dismissive attitude of the adults towards the kids' achievements at the end annoyed me as much as it annoyed the hero, but I can see why it had to be that way, so overall an excellent read.
Coelho:
On Wednesday, I was sitting outside the office, desperately trying to finish Tunnel In The Sky before it was time to meet friends in the pub, when a homeless man came up to me and offered me a book. He said he'd finished it and thought I might enjoy it, then wandered off before I had a chance to say or do anything. The book was The Alchemist by Paulo Coelho. Dave didn't want me to read it, as he said it sounded like the start of a bad 80s fantasy show, and was worried I might be transported to another world as soon as I opened the book. What actually happened was that I read something very interesting that made me reflect on a lot of things. I do not say this because the book itself had an impact on me, but rather because it didn't. It's not really a novel - most of the characters are not given names (the boy, the old man, the Englishman, the Gypsy), which makes them archetypes rather than characters, and reinforces the sense that it's actually more of a self-help book than a story. The majority of it involves various characters giving the boy their opinions on the best way to achieve happiness. It's all about listening to omens, identifying your destiny, and following your dreams - one phrase that is repeated many times throughout the book is "when you want something, all the universe conspires in helping you to achieve it" - and I can easily see how a certain kind of person might find it life-altering if they hadn't already thought about these kinds of things. However, I've spent a great deal of time thinking about what kind of person I want to be, and how I want to live my life, and nothing in The Alchemist was new to me, or of any great use. I don't subscribe to most of its teachings, but it was still an interesting book to read.
There were two particularly interesting points in the book. One was a story told to the boy by the old man he meets at the beginning. It had to do with another boy, who visited a wise man and asked him the secret of happiness. The wise man gave the boy a spoon containing a few drops of oil, and told him to wander the castle for two hours and then come back without having spilt the oil. The boy does so, but fails to see any of the wonders of the castle. The wise man then tells him to wander the castle again and take note of the wonders. The boy does so, but spills the oil. The conclusion of the story is that, "The secret of happiness is to see all the marvels of the world, and never to forget the drops of oil on the spoon." Now, that is a theory I can certainly subscribe to - and I believe I largely achieve it.
The second thing is that the only character designated by a name rather than a generic description is the girl the boy meets in the desert, and with whom he falls in love. Giving her a name immediately makes her an individual, and gives the climax of the book a much more personal feel. I was actually growing rather bored by the endless treatises on destiny by the last few pages, but the introduction of the love story and the individuality of the girl revitalised my interest in the story and made me want to find out what happened to them in the end.
Spark:
A while ago, Dave sent me an article about characterisation in fiction, which was really interesting. In it, one particular fictional character was mentioned over and over again, and it was someone from a book I'd never heard of - The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie by Muriel Spark. Intrigued, I ordered the book from Amazon and read it last night and this morning. It's an odd book, about a teacher who tells her students stories about her life and the world rather than teaching them maths and grammar. It's quirky and rather strange, but intriguing and thought-provoking. The plot is about the revealing of which girl it was who betrayed Miss Brodie to the headmistress and caused her to be forced into retirement. The structure is very effective, in that it tells the story of the girls' years under Miss Brodie's instruction, interspersed with flashes forward to what happens to all of them in later life. Thus, it builds the story like a jumbled jigsaw, and it's very cleverly put together. It's about growing up, and the way in which people's opinions about things change over time, and how people influence you when you are young. Slightly odd, but very good.
Bell:
Dave and I went to see Jumper at the cinema last night. I deliberately disengaged my brain as the film began, and had difficulty relocating it at the end. The film had its moments, but my one-word review would be "adolescent".
In greater detail, I liked the concept, but I didn't think it was explored to its full potential. It was largely nonsense, and I had less than no interest in the main character - Haydn Christensen really hasn't gotten any better at the whole acting lark and seemed utterly devoid of any kind of personality. The first thing that really annoyed me was when he jumped onto the clock face of Big Ben - he was holding onto the minute hand, which was at 32 minutes past the hour - and yet the clock chimed the hour while he was standing there - grrrr! Still the special effects were very good and there were several excellent action sequences - though they were almost completely ruined by the modern directing technique of putting the camera right next to the actors and then shaking it about so it's impossible to see what's going on.
The only thing that really made the film worth watching was Jamie Bell, and he wasn't in it nearly enough. I thought his character was fascinating, and that he portrayed Griffin extremely well. I liked the fact that he was using his normal Sheffield accent, and I liked the fact that the film gave certain small but very affecting insights into his character (such as taking a corpse back to his lair so that he would have someone to talk to), and I would really like to see a film based around him. Why is it that the interesting characters in these films are almost exclusively the supporting characters, and that the "hero" could generally be replaced by a piece of plywood and nobody would notice?
Overall, certainly not high on my list of great movies - but I would be prepared to watch a sequel in the hopes that the various interesting things about it would be developed further.
