And we're on to number 11, The Curse of the Narrows, by Laura M. Mac Donald.
This book is about the Halifax explosion of 1917, when two ships, the Mont Blanc and the Imo, collided in Halifax harbour. The didn't collide all that hard, but the problem was that the Mont Blanc was carrying tons of high explosives, all destined for the war effort over in Europe. The Imo hit the Mont Blanc and about half an hour later, the Mont Blanc exploded, devestating much of Halifax in the process. The Mont Blanc became the largest man-made 'bomb' the world had yet seen, and the explosion killed nearly 2000 Haligonians and caused 24 million dollars of damage (in 1917 dollars).
Y'know, while reading this book, I was struck by the fact that, in many ways, I'm pretty ignorant of my own country's history. Oh sure, I know the broad details, the War of 1812, Confederation, the FLQ Crisis, the building of the railroads, the Plains of Abraham, the Winnipeg Strikes, Louis Riel, blah, blah, but there's a lot I don't know too. It really did strike me that, through the dint of my degree in English Literature, I know British history a hell of a lot better than I know my own. And that made me kinda sad.
The only knowledge I had of the Halifax explosion prior to picking up this book was one of those Canada Heritage Moments on the CBC (other Canadians will know what I mean), where they talk about a telegraph operator who manages to telegraph a train and stop it from arriving at Halifax harbour, as he knew the ship was going to explode. The train was stopped, but the telegraph operater died in the explosion. And that was all I knew.
But the Curse of the Narrows goes into frightening, clear detail. I had no idea that Halifax had been so devestated. There wasn't a building in the city left undamaged when the explosion was done. People were blown from their feet to land miles away from where they were. 2000 died and nearly 5000 were injured. Some were blinded, some lost limbs, whole families were wiped out, many children were orphaned. It was a horrendous catastrophy.
Mac Donald attempts to recreate the circumstances leading up to the crash, and she basically comes down on the side that it was the Imo that was in error. But unfortunatey, error compounded on error and the ships collided anyway. The Mont Blanc's crew, tried to warn others, but there was no time, they abandoned the ship, which, with unfortunate accuracy, drifted over to a pier where she stayed, practically in the 'centre' of town, until she blew. Mac Donald follows certain families and people as they try to understand what just happened and make their way home through the devestation, searching for loved ones.
But its the relief effort that she also captures very well, and despite the cataclysm, there is much hope as the rest of Canada and Massechusettes especially, responds to help Halifax and send doctors, clothes, food, temporary shelters, money etc., for a city that has lost very nearly everything.
She also talks about the inquiry the Canadian government had about the explosion, which was really more about assigning blame for the catastrophy, more than in finding out what really happened. The inquiry found that it was the Mont Blanc, the ship carrying the explosives, that was to blame, but this doesn't really seem to be the case, but no one cared, they just wanted to have someone to take their frustrations out on.
But the most poinant thing of all that I got out of this book is the realization that the role Boston played in helping Halifax is still recognized today: Every year, the huge, Christmas Tree that is lit there is shipped down from Halifax. They sent the first tree in 1918 as a thank you for the desperately needed relief they received from Boston. I think its beautiful that the thank you is still recognized and remembered every year.
This was a very, very interesting book and I'm so glad I read it.
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Monday, May 07, 2007
Numeral X of the year is Give Our Regards to the Atom Smashers: Writers on Comics. Its written by various writers (none of whom I'd actually heard of, now that I think about it), and edited by Sean Howe. I picked it up from G after he'd finished with it (as it is his book) because I was looking for something a little lighter than my current 'heavy' read.
Its bascially exactly what it says it is, various writers writting about their thoughts, feelings on comic books. There's a lot of reminiscing and sharing what comic books mean to them, or meant to them while growing up. Often, they were forbidden by a parent, and so because they were taboo, they became even more sought after.
I found it interesting that the majority of those writing were tried-and-true Marvel zombies as kids, reading nothing but Marvel stories and completely disdaining DC. This was during the seventies, when comics had hit a rather... rough period. I.E., they were pretty bland. Of course, though, as the writers look back in hindsight, they realize that a lot of the Marvel stuff they were reading and loving were actually reprints of Marvel stuff from the sixties, when Marvel was at its zenith of putting out really good, energetic, interesting stories and art. That wasn't happening in the seventies.
I'm not saying DC was doing anything better in the seventies, the renaissance for DC wouldn't really happen again till the 80s with Frank Miller and Alan Moore, but still, as someone who is pretty much a DC-phile, I get a kick out of reading ex-Marvel Zombies admitting that the stuff back then wasn't really that good.
There were quite a few essays on stuff that I've never read, like TinTin, Little Nemo, some various Indie things that I'll probably never read because I find the vast majority of Indie stuff boring, repeatitive and way too emotionally overblown. I like my superheroes, I freely admit that. I never apologize for liking superheroes or superhero comics, and so it is always nice to read about others who are similarily unapologetic for their comic-book reading habits.
I guess I took this book as a big affirmation as to my love of comic books :)
Its bascially exactly what it says it is, various writers writting about their thoughts, feelings on comic books. There's a lot of reminiscing and sharing what comic books mean to them, or meant to them while growing up. Often, they were forbidden by a parent, and so because they were taboo, they became even more sought after.
I found it interesting that the majority of those writing were tried-and-true Marvel zombies as kids, reading nothing but Marvel stories and completely disdaining DC. This was during the seventies, when comics had hit a rather... rough period. I.E., they were pretty bland. Of course, though, as the writers look back in hindsight, they realize that a lot of the Marvel stuff they were reading and loving were actually reprints of Marvel stuff from the sixties, when Marvel was at its zenith of putting out really good, energetic, interesting stories and art. That wasn't happening in the seventies.
I'm not saying DC was doing anything better in the seventies, the renaissance for DC wouldn't really happen again till the 80s with Frank Miller and Alan Moore, but still, as someone who is pretty much a DC-phile, I get a kick out of reading ex-Marvel Zombies admitting that the stuff back then wasn't really that good.
There were quite a few essays on stuff that I've never read, like TinTin, Little Nemo, some various Indie things that I'll probably never read because I find the vast majority of Indie stuff boring, repeatitive and way too emotionally overblown. I like my superheroes, I freely admit that. I never apologize for liking superheroes or superhero comics, and so it is always nice to read about others who are similarily unapologetic for their comic-book reading habits.
I guess I took this book as a big affirmation as to my love of comic books :)
Monday, April 16, 2007
Number nine is Serpent's Garden by Judith Merkle Riley. Yes, polished off another by her, as G's friend lent me another, and I don't like keeping books from people for long. So this one did some line jumping in front of the 'heavier' book I'm also currently reading.
Merkle Riley obviously has a bit of a 'pattern' in her books. Her main characters are modern women but in historical settings. Like Genevieve from Oracle Glass, Susanna Dollett has been well educated for a woman of Renaissance England. In fact, she's so well educated (by her father) that she can actually earn a living from her trade, she's a master painter. But of course, because she's a woman, she'll never be recognized as such. She's married off to a rather horrible man who really only wanted to know her father's secrets, and so agrees to marry her. Susanna wants to be a good wife, but her husband is a philanderer who is eventually murdered in his mistress' bed by her husband. Susanna's life of course gets better then, albeit rather strange.
Merkle Riley also seems to have a fondness for quirky demons, as another one shows up here as well. The plot seems more mudled in this book, as she throws in a lot of Priory of Scion/Templar/Holy Blood, Holy Grail conspiracy stuff in here that doesn't really seem to be a good... fit? The court intregue that Susanna becomes embroiled in through her painting talents seems to be enough; she ends up being in the service of the powerful Cardinal Wolsey and having to accompany the Princess Mary (Henry VIII's younger sister) to France for her marriage to the King of France, and all of this seems plenty. The plot to put the Meroviginian's back on the French throne seemed tacked on and rather... well, given the DaVinci Code crappola, tired. (and yes, I know this book came out well before the DaVinci Code, but I guess I'm just a little tired of all these consipiracy theories).
Overall, it is a nice book, a quick read, and Susanna is a nice character, but no, I didn't think this was as good as Oracle Glass.
Merkle Riley obviously has a bit of a 'pattern' in her books. Her main characters are modern women but in historical settings. Like Genevieve from Oracle Glass, Susanna Dollett has been well educated for a woman of Renaissance England. In fact, she's so well educated (by her father) that she can actually earn a living from her trade, she's a master painter. But of course, because she's a woman, she'll never be recognized as such. She's married off to a rather horrible man who really only wanted to know her father's secrets, and so agrees to marry her. Susanna wants to be a good wife, but her husband is a philanderer who is eventually murdered in his mistress' bed by her husband. Susanna's life of course gets better then, albeit rather strange.
Merkle Riley also seems to have a fondness for quirky demons, as another one shows up here as well. The plot seems more mudled in this book, as she throws in a lot of Priory of Scion/Templar/Holy Blood, Holy Grail conspiracy stuff in here that doesn't really seem to be a good... fit? The court intregue that Susanna becomes embroiled in through her painting talents seems to be enough; she ends up being in the service of the powerful Cardinal Wolsey and having to accompany the Princess Mary (Henry VIII's younger sister) to France for her marriage to the King of France, and all of this seems plenty. The plot to put the Meroviginian's back on the French throne seemed tacked on and rather... well, given the DaVinci Code crappola, tired. (and yes, I know this book came out well before the DaVinci Code, but I guess I'm just a little tired of all these consipiracy theories).
Overall, it is a nice book, a quick read, and Susanna is a nice character, but no, I didn't think this was as good as Oracle Glass.
Monday, April 09, 2007
Numeral VIII of the year is The Oracle Glass by Judith Merkle Riley. Its a book recommended to me by one of G's friends who also has a prediliction to historical 'fantasy', so I take her recommendation seriously.
This was a lovely book set in the time of the reign of Louis XIV, the Sun King of France. Now, I know quite a bit about the French Revolution and the last of the days of Louis XVII and Marie Antoinette and whatnot, but before that, not much. Really, my knowledge of earlier France was through the Three Muskateers and whatnot, so not exactly in depth, but a rough idea.
The main character of the Oracle Glass is one Genevieve Pasquier, a girl from a decent family that's fallen on hard times. Her mother is a society-climber who cannot seem to get very far, and continuously rails against her lack of position. Genevieve's father is a failed financier who now buries himself in his philosophy books and doesn't have much time for any of his family save for Genevieve, and so he passes on his love of the great Greek philosophers to his daughter. Genevieve grows up very eductated in some things, not so much in others. But it does give her a shrewd mind and a very different way of looking at French society.
After her mother poisions both her husband and her mother-in-law, Genevieve escapes her family (basically by having her own death faked) and begins a new life as a fortune teller, under the tutaledge of the most famous and powerful witch in Paris at the time, La Voisin. Genevieve is recreated as the century-old Marquise de Morville, who is adept at reading futures in vases of clear water. It is interesting that Riley actually does seem to give Genevieve actual talent at being psychic, as that's the really only 'supernatural' element of the book. Otherwise, all the other fortune telling talents are exposed for what they are; card tricks, hoaxes and some fairly advanced psychoanalysis. Its really quite fascinating especially as I never knew that fortune telling was in such vogue during the Louis XIV's time.
Also quite fascinating is the web of underground politics amongst the witches. They are also suppliers of love potions, of posions, and abortions. They subtely influence the court, especially when they give predicitons on who the King may or may not take as his latest mistress. I love books with court intregue, and this one has it in spades.
We follow Genevieve through a few years of her life, as she deals with first her training, then her rise in the court, her battle of wits with her overbearing and powerful patroness, and her trials and tribulations with love and the law.
Its a very well done book, the historical details are lovely and the characters all very well drawn with Genevieve being strong enough, yet quirky enough as well to be believable.
This was a lovely book set in the time of the reign of Louis XIV, the Sun King of France. Now, I know quite a bit about the French Revolution and the last of the days of Louis XVII and Marie Antoinette and whatnot, but before that, not much. Really, my knowledge of earlier France was through the Three Muskateers and whatnot, so not exactly in depth, but a rough idea.
The main character of the Oracle Glass is one Genevieve Pasquier, a girl from a decent family that's fallen on hard times. Her mother is a society-climber who cannot seem to get very far, and continuously rails against her lack of position. Genevieve's father is a failed financier who now buries himself in his philosophy books and doesn't have much time for any of his family save for Genevieve, and so he passes on his love of the great Greek philosophers to his daughter. Genevieve grows up very eductated in some things, not so much in others. But it does give her a shrewd mind and a very different way of looking at French society.
After her mother poisions both her husband and her mother-in-law, Genevieve escapes her family (basically by having her own death faked) and begins a new life as a fortune teller, under the tutaledge of the most famous and powerful witch in Paris at the time, La Voisin. Genevieve is recreated as the century-old Marquise de Morville, who is adept at reading futures in vases of clear water. It is interesting that Riley actually does seem to give Genevieve actual talent at being psychic, as that's the really only 'supernatural' element of the book. Otherwise, all the other fortune telling talents are exposed for what they are; card tricks, hoaxes and some fairly advanced psychoanalysis. Its really quite fascinating especially as I never knew that fortune telling was in such vogue during the Louis XIV's time.
Also quite fascinating is the web of underground politics amongst the witches. They are also suppliers of love potions, of posions, and abortions. They subtely influence the court, especially when they give predicitons on who the King may or may not take as his latest mistress. I love books with court intregue, and this one has it in spades.
We follow Genevieve through a few years of her life, as she deals with first her training, then her rise in the court, her battle of wits with her overbearing and powerful patroness, and her trials and tribulations with love and the law.
Its a very well done book, the historical details are lovely and the characters all very well drawn with Genevieve being strong enough, yet quirky enough as well to be believable.
Monday, March 19, 2007
Number seven of this year... heh, that's kinda apropos actually, given that the main character has this problem with the number seven, i.e. bad things always happen to her when sevens are around.
Anyway, number seven is Where the Heart Is by Billie Letts. This is not a book I would ever, ever seek out for myself. My aunt threw it at me and I thought it would be rude not to read it. (I can afford to be polite because I read fast). Why would I not read this? Mainly because it is a *shudder* Oprah Bookclub recommended read. Generally, I swore that I would stay faaaaarrrr away from anything Oprah recommends because I'm a snob. I admit that. Oh sure, I do read best sellers, don't get me wrong, but Oprah always seems to recommend scholcky sort of reads that just don't interest me in the least. Although she did also recommend East of Eden by John Steinbeck and that's a good book... well, everybody's right now and then I suppose.
So, Where the Heart Is... its a quick read, which is nice, full of nice, quirky, Southern characters. The main character is one Novalee Nation (whom I believe is played by Natalie Portman in the movie based upon this book). She's 17, 7 months pregnant, and is dumped by her loser boyfriend at a Wal-Mart with only $7.77 to her name. Upon discovering her abandonment, she ends up living in the Wal-Mart until she gives birth to her little girl, whom she names Americus Nation. Yes, that definitely made me roll my eyes. Anyway, Novalee's plight touches many of the people in the small, Oklahoma town she has been left in, and she is given a home with one of said, quirky characters (charmingly-uber-christian Sister Husband) and a job with Wal-Mart (probably the only place you'll ever see Wal-Mart portrayed somewhat benignly). Novalee struggles somewhat, but she works hard and makes something of herself and yes, this is a rather uplifting story that things can work out for you if you actually do TRY, so its got a nice message that way. And its not actually treacly sweet; characters do die and are preyed upon in some really bad ways, but everything does work out for the best, so there are happy endings all around.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for happy endings. I especially love a good happy ending after a character has been put through hell and back, but in a weird way, I never felt like that happened to Novalee, despite all her setbacks. Maybe because I felt she had an almost Pollyanna outlook on life, and that makes it hard to see that she's struggling.
Yup, nothing great, nothing bad, just there. No more Oprah for me.
Anyway, number seven is Where the Heart Is by Billie Letts. This is not a book I would ever, ever seek out for myself. My aunt threw it at me and I thought it would be rude not to read it. (I can afford to be polite because I read fast). Why would I not read this? Mainly because it is a *shudder* Oprah Bookclub recommended read. Generally, I swore that I would stay faaaaarrrr away from anything Oprah recommends because I'm a snob. I admit that. Oh sure, I do read best sellers, don't get me wrong, but Oprah always seems to recommend scholcky sort of reads that just don't interest me in the least. Although she did also recommend East of Eden by John Steinbeck and that's a good book... well, everybody's right now and then I suppose.
So, Where the Heart Is... its a quick read, which is nice, full of nice, quirky, Southern characters. The main character is one Novalee Nation (whom I believe is played by Natalie Portman in the movie based upon this book). She's 17, 7 months pregnant, and is dumped by her loser boyfriend at a Wal-Mart with only $7.77 to her name. Upon discovering her abandonment, she ends up living in the Wal-Mart until she gives birth to her little girl, whom she names Americus Nation. Yes, that definitely made me roll my eyes. Anyway, Novalee's plight touches many of the people in the small, Oklahoma town she has been left in, and she is given a home with one of said, quirky characters (charmingly-uber-christian Sister Husband) and a job with Wal-Mart (probably the only place you'll ever see Wal-Mart portrayed somewhat benignly). Novalee struggles somewhat, but she works hard and makes something of herself and yes, this is a rather uplifting story that things can work out for you if you actually do TRY, so its got a nice message that way. And its not actually treacly sweet; characters do die and are preyed upon in some really bad ways, but everything does work out for the best, so there are happy endings all around.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for happy endings. I especially love a good happy ending after a character has been put through hell and back, but in a weird way, I never felt like that happened to Novalee, despite all her setbacks. Maybe because I felt she had an almost Pollyanna outlook on life, and that makes it hard to see that she's struggling.
Yup, nothing great, nothing bad, just there. No more Oprah for me.
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Number six of 2007 was Anasasi Boys by Neil Gaiman. I bought this one way back last fall and, for some reason, have only now gotten around to reading it. I'm not sure why the delay; yes I did have some other books in line before it, but I also did some line-jumping with this one and just kept shuttling back. It's not that I don't like Gaiman; Sandman good, Stardust good, Good Omens great, American Gods really good, etc, I just couldn't seem to get into the idea of reading this one.
I think partly it had to do with the fact that I don't know anything about Anasasi or African mythology or anything like that. I have some pretty good knowledge of a lot of different mythologies (mainly Greek/Roman, Celtic, Norse, Arthurian), but anything not really 'western' and I'm at a loss. So, for some reason, I thought not knowing anything about Anasasi (other than he is represented as a big spider sometimes) would hinder my enjoyment of the book.
I was wrong. I didn't need to know a damn thing about Anasasi. I really shouldn't have worried, basically Gaiman takes these gods (as he did with some of the Norse guys in American Gods) and uses them for his own stories. Oh he stays true to the gods' particular brand of story, and so it all flows well.
This one is another nice, domestic tale of a god's family (and really, aren't most mythologies all about the domestic lives of the various gods?) and its as dysfunctional as most pantheon families is as well. The book deals with the death of Anasasi, and how it affects his son, Fat Charlie. How this affects Fat charlie the most is that he finds out about a brother he never knew he had, a brother named Spider. Seems that Spider is Fat Charlie's brother in only the loosest sense, turns out he was actually 'split' from Charlie magically, when Charlie was just a boy. But Spider seems to be everything that Fat Charlie wishes he was; cool, suave, carefree and killer with the ladies. But with such things, Spider also brings some chaos, and its not long before Fat Charlie's life is turned upside down, which is usually what happens when you're dealing with a trickster god and his offspring.
Like the tales and webs that Anasasi spun, there are many threads in this story, but they all weave together nicely until just about every main character ends up for the story's climax on a small, Caribbean resort island. Believe it or not, it actually took me a few minutes to realize that it was all coming together like that, Gaiman did a really good job of not making it obvious until really, the third character stated their intentions of going there.
There's some humour and violence as usual, but also as usual, Gaiman wraps up everything quite nicely.
Anasasi's Boys was a quick, fun little read and I really shouldn't have put it off for so long.
I think partly it had to do with the fact that I don't know anything about Anasasi or African mythology or anything like that. I have some pretty good knowledge of a lot of different mythologies (mainly Greek/Roman, Celtic, Norse, Arthurian), but anything not really 'western' and I'm at a loss. So, for some reason, I thought not knowing anything about Anasasi (other than he is represented as a big spider sometimes) would hinder my enjoyment of the book.
I was wrong. I didn't need to know a damn thing about Anasasi. I really shouldn't have worried, basically Gaiman takes these gods (as he did with some of the Norse guys in American Gods) and uses them for his own stories. Oh he stays true to the gods' particular brand of story, and so it all flows well.
This one is another nice, domestic tale of a god's family (and really, aren't most mythologies all about the domestic lives of the various gods?) and its as dysfunctional as most pantheon families is as well. The book deals with the death of Anasasi, and how it affects his son, Fat Charlie. How this affects Fat charlie the most is that he finds out about a brother he never knew he had, a brother named Spider. Seems that Spider is Fat Charlie's brother in only the loosest sense, turns out he was actually 'split' from Charlie magically, when Charlie was just a boy. But Spider seems to be everything that Fat Charlie wishes he was; cool, suave, carefree and killer with the ladies. But with such things, Spider also brings some chaos, and its not long before Fat Charlie's life is turned upside down, which is usually what happens when you're dealing with a trickster god and his offspring.
Like the tales and webs that Anasasi spun, there are many threads in this story, but they all weave together nicely until just about every main character ends up for the story's climax on a small, Caribbean resort island. Believe it or not, it actually took me a few minutes to realize that it was all coming together like that, Gaiman did a really good job of not making it obvious until really, the third character stated their intentions of going there.
There's some humour and violence as usual, but also as usual, Gaiman wraps up everything quite nicely.
Anasasi's Boys was a quick, fun little read and I really shouldn't have put it off for so long.
Monday, February 26, 2007
Book number five of the year is The Memory Keeper's Daughter by Kim Edwards. I wasn't expecting to like this book as much as I did. I mean, it wasn't great, but it was interesting enough to keep me going and the prose was fluid and descriptive and also not too bad.
I received this book for Christmas from G's sister. Its not normally something I'd pick up by anymeans (meaning its not fantasy or historical fiction or historical non-fiction or even horror, which is the bulk of what I read), rather its good 'ol best sellers list stuff.
The book is about a doctor, David Henry, who, in the 1960s, finds himself delivering his own set of twins on a snowy night, unable to get his wife to the hospital in time. Everything is fine with the first baby, a healthy little boy, but the second baby, a little girl, is born with an obvious case of Down's Syndrome. Henry, having grown up with an invalid sister who died young, makes the decision not to 'burden' his wife with this child and so tells his nurse to take the baby away to a home where she will be cared for. He later tells his wife (who has been unconscious for the later part of the birth) that the baby girl died.
The twist here is though that the nurse, Caroline, does take the baby (called Phoebe) to the home, but sees immediately that it is a horrible place, and so makes the decision to take Phoebe and raise her as her own. She does indeed tell Henry that she has done this, but she doesn't tell him where she moves to, as she doesn't want to give up the child.
What ensues is a very interesting look at the dynamics of the two families who are formed by the doctor's fateful decision. The doctor's wife Norah, never comes to terms with the depression she continuously feels after her baby's 'death', and the doctor forever holds himself apart from his family, protecting the terrible secret he created. The family slowly disintigrates over the years, drifting apart, never talking, no one but the doctor knowing what the real problem is, so never being able to fix it.
The second family, the nurse's, turns out much more happy really. She does live with some fear that she will lose her 'daughter', and she fights very hard for Phoebe's rights, ensuring that she gets a fair education etc. She also has the happier of the two marriages by far. Because of this, I couldn't help but feel that obviously, Caroline made the 'right' decision in not abaonding Phoebe, and so, while there are some hardships, she does have the happier emotional life.
Of course, its also very interesting seeing the way Down's Syndrome was percieved in the 60s. While it may seem increadible to us that David Henry would just immediately sentence his child to an institution, back then, this was what most doctors would recomment. Caroline's story of struggling to win the basic rights for her daughter to even go to school is very fascinating, and its strange to think that this wasn't always such an automatic thing.
So yeah, quick read, but a good one, I think this really only took me three days to read.
I received this book for Christmas from G's sister. Its not normally something I'd pick up by anymeans (meaning its not fantasy or historical fiction or historical non-fiction or even horror, which is the bulk of what I read), rather its good 'ol best sellers list stuff.
The book is about a doctor, David Henry, who, in the 1960s, finds himself delivering his own set of twins on a snowy night, unable to get his wife to the hospital in time. Everything is fine with the first baby, a healthy little boy, but the second baby, a little girl, is born with an obvious case of Down's Syndrome. Henry, having grown up with an invalid sister who died young, makes the decision not to 'burden' his wife with this child and so tells his nurse to take the baby away to a home where she will be cared for. He later tells his wife (who has been unconscious for the later part of the birth) that the baby girl died.
The twist here is though that the nurse, Caroline, does take the baby (called Phoebe) to the home, but sees immediately that it is a horrible place, and so makes the decision to take Phoebe and raise her as her own. She does indeed tell Henry that she has done this, but she doesn't tell him where she moves to, as she doesn't want to give up the child.
What ensues is a very interesting look at the dynamics of the two families who are formed by the doctor's fateful decision. The doctor's wife Norah, never comes to terms with the depression she continuously feels after her baby's 'death', and the doctor forever holds himself apart from his family, protecting the terrible secret he created. The family slowly disintigrates over the years, drifting apart, never talking, no one but the doctor knowing what the real problem is, so never being able to fix it.
The second family, the nurse's, turns out much more happy really. She does live with some fear that she will lose her 'daughter', and she fights very hard for Phoebe's rights, ensuring that she gets a fair education etc. She also has the happier of the two marriages by far. Because of this, I couldn't help but feel that obviously, Caroline made the 'right' decision in not abaonding Phoebe, and so, while there are some hardships, she does have the happier emotional life.
Of course, its also very interesting seeing the way Down's Syndrome was percieved in the 60s. While it may seem increadible to us that David Henry would just immediately sentence his child to an institution, back then, this was what most doctors would recomment. Caroline's story of struggling to win the basic rights for her daughter to even go to school is very fascinating, and its strange to think that this wasn't always such an automatic thing.
So yeah, quick read, but a good one, I think this really only took me three days to read.
Monday, February 12, 2007
Number 4 of the year is Ysabel by Guy Gavriel Kay.
Guy Kay is my favourite author. He wrote my very favourite books ever (in fact, I'm re-reading the Fionavar Tapestry again right now), and during university, I wrote a paper on them (which, if you go to Kay's site www.brightweavings.com, you can read it there.) I realized it had been awhile since I'd visited the site, so last Monday I decided to pop on over and see what Kay was up to.
Imagine my surprise to discover he had a new book out. Ok, surprise probably isn't the right word... shock is more like it. I couldn't believe I'd missed it! I couldn't believe I'd missed him doing his usual book launch reading at Hart House! I have all his books and each and every one of them are signed. This is the first one that hasn't been and I feel... let down. Let down by myself more than anything really. But, I'll keep track now and hope that he does another reading again at some point. After all, he does live in Toronto.
So anyway, yes, Ysabel. I loved it. Loved, loved, loved it. Mainly because two characters from Fionavar show up in this, and I was just tickled to see them. Oh, the book has its own merits of course, and its actually quite the departure for Kay as well. Its his first book set wholly in the 'mundane' world. Rather than having characters from our world cross over into a fantasy world, or rather than having the story take place entirely in a fantasy world... Ysabel takes place completely in Provence, France. And in another departure, the protagonist of the book is only fifteen years old, which makes for an interesting perspective. I'm not entirely sure Kay writes a youngster perfectly, but he does well enough.
The plot is mainly a cat-and-mouse game that has been going on for thousands of years, and its a game with deadly consequences that the protagonist, Ned, finds himself wrapped up in. Kay likes the themes of people with hidden potential caught up in stories that they don't mean to find themselves in and rising to the occasion, and he writes them very well. I also thought that despite the title of the book, Ysabel herself is not really... in it much. She is discussed and sought after and the raison d'etre for the entire book, but we don't really see her much as a character, which meant I felt myself rather distanced from her, but I think that was the point. Ysabel is from a time so long ago and alien to us that its hard to understand what is happening with her and her two, eternal suitors, Cadell and Phelan. We see the story pretty much entirely through Ned's eyes, and while sometimes this is good, sometimes its frustrating because I would've liked to know a little more about WHY everything was happening. A little more explanation would've been nice.
But other than that, I didn't have any complaints. I burned through it in a week, and the exclamation of joy I made when I realized who indeed Aunt Kim was, made this book all worth it for me.
Guy Kay is my favourite author. He wrote my very favourite books ever (in fact, I'm re-reading the Fionavar Tapestry again right now), and during university, I wrote a paper on them (which, if you go to Kay's site www.brightweavings.com, you can read it there.) I realized it had been awhile since I'd visited the site, so last Monday I decided to pop on over and see what Kay was up to.
Imagine my surprise to discover he had a new book out. Ok, surprise probably isn't the right word... shock is more like it. I couldn't believe I'd missed it! I couldn't believe I'd missed him doing his usual book launch reading at Hart House! I have all his books and each and every one of them are signed. This is the first one that hasn't been and I feel... let down. Let down by myself more than anything really. But, I'll keep track now and hope that he does another reading again at some point. After all, he does live in Toronto.
So anyway, yes, Ysabel. I loved it. Loved, loved, loved it. Mainly because two characters from Fionavar show up in this, and I was just tickled to see them. Oh, the book has its own merits of course, and its actually quite the departure for Kay as well. Its his first book set wholly in the 'mundane' world. Rather than having characters from our world cross over into a fantasy world, or rather than having the story take place entirely in a fantasy world... Ysabel takes place completely in Provence, France. And in another departure, the protagonist of the book is only fifteen years old, which makes for an interesting perspective. I'm not entirely sure Kay writes a youngster perfectly, but he does well enough.
The plot is mainly a cat-and-mouse game that has been going on for thousands of years, and its a game with deadly consequences that the protagonist, Ned, finds himself wrapped up in. Kay likes the themes of people with hidden potential caught up in stories that they don't mean to find themselves in and rising to the occasion, and he writes them very well. I also thought that despite the title of the book, Ysabel herself is not really... in it much. She is discussed and sought after and the raison d'etre for the entire book, but we don't really see her much as a character, which meant I felt myself rather distanced from her, but I think that was the point. Ysabel is from a time so long ago and alien to us that its hard to understand what is happening with her and her two, eternal suitors, Cadell and Phelan. We see the story pretty much entirely through Ned's eyes, and while sometimes this is good, sometimes its frustrating because I would've liked to know a little more about WHY everything was happening. A little more explanation would've been nice.
But other than that, I didn't have any complaints. I burned through it in a week, and the exclamation of joy I made when I realized who indeed Aunt Kim was, made this book all worth it for me.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Whoohoo! Finished book number three of the year!
And what was my third book? Bitten by Kelly Armstrong. Originally, I had G pick this up as a possible Christmas gift for my mother. I had mistakenly thought it was about vampires, but it ended up being about werewolves. No biggie though, my mom is equally fond of both. However, it ended up that G found the book he originally wanted to give my mom (which was about vampires), so I ended up keeping Bitten.
I'd heard of this book awhile ago. Kelly Armstrong is from Toronto and took the same Romance Writing course I took, from the same instructor. As she has gone on to be published, of course Brian (the course instructor) trotted out her name to prove that some of his alumni do go on to get published. Which actually, was nice to know.
So, having the book in my posession, I decided to give it a shot.
It's not great.
I's not bad either; the fact that some of it is set in Toronto is always amusing, since not a lot is actually set in Toronto. It's told in a first person narrative, through the eyes of the 'only female werewolf in the world', Elena. Elena has a cliche ridden angsty background that drove me up the wall (orphaned tragically at a young age, brought up in foster homes and abused repeatedly. I don't doubt this happens, but really, it would be so much more refreshing if this sort of thing didn't happen all the time in order to make a character more... edgy) and she dithers more about decisions than Hamlet does, which also makes her rather annoying.
Armstrong does create her own werewolf mythology, and she maintains her internal consistency well, but I find her writing style falls victim to her often repeating herself, or hitting you over the head with her central motifs of how angry Elena is with everything, but how she has to accept it etc. The secondary characters aren't all that interesting, in fact, I also found them pretty cliche; the attractive, intelligent, dangerous, lone wolf ex-boyfriend; the patient, intelligent, talented Alpha male pack leader, etc. I found that I didn't really bond with any of these characters much at all.
As I said, it wasn't a horrible read, I mean, I did finish the book, but I know there are more in this series about Elena, and I doubt I'll be rushing out to pick 'em up.
And now after three fairly 'fluffy' books, I'm feeling the need to read something a little more... weighty I think.
Oh, and I'm half way through a re-read of Guy Kay's The Summer Tree.
And what was my third book? Bitten by Kelly Armstrong. Originally, I had G pick this up as a possible Christmas gift for my mother. I had mistakenly thought it was about vampires, but it ended up being about werewolves. No biggie though, my mom is equally fond of both. However, it ended up that G found the book he originally wanted to give my mom (which was about vampires), so I ended up keeping Bitten.
I'd heard of this book awhile ago. Kelly Armstrong is from Toronto and took the same Romance Writing course I took, from the same instructor. As she has gone on to be published, of course Brian (the course instructor) trotted out her name to prove that some of his alumni do go on to get published. Which actually, was nice to know.
So, having the book in my posession, I decided to give it a shot.
It's not great.
I's not bad either; the fact that some of it is set in Toronto is always amusing, since not a lot is actually set in Toronto. It's told in a first person narrative, through the eyes of the 'only female werewolf in the world', Elena. Elena has a cliche ridden angsty background that drove me up the wall (orphaned tragically at a young age, brought up in foster homes and abused repeatedly. I don't doubt this happens, but really, it would be so much more refreshing if this sort of thing didn't happen all the time in order to make a character more... edgy) and she dithers more about decisions than Hamlet does, which also makes her rather annoying.
Armstrong does create her own werewolf mythology, and she maintains her internal consistency well, but I find her writing style falls victim to her often repeating herself, or hitting you over the head with her central motifs of how angry Elena is with everything, but how she has to accept it etc. The secondary characters aren't all that interesting, in fact, I also found them pretty cliche; the attractive, intelligent, dangerous, lone wolf ex-boyfriend; the patient, intelligent, talented Alpha male pack leader, etc. I found that I didn't really bond with any of these characters much at all.
As I said, it wasn't a horrible read, I mean, I did finish the book, but I know there are more in this series about Elena, and I doubt I'll be rushing out to pick 'em up.
And now after three fairly 'fluffy' books, I'm feeling the need to read something a little more... weighty I think.
Oh, and I'm half way through a re-read of Guy Kay's The Summer Tree.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Yay! First post of 2006! And I've already read two books!
Ok, so one was pretty damn short, but still, two books! Two weeks into January!
I'm not going to keep this pace up...
So, what have I read? Well, I read Inheritance by Devin Grayson, and Five Hole Stories by Dave Bidini. What are they about? Well two of my very favourite things, superheroes and hockey, respectively, and even better, there's sex in 'em!
lol. Yes, I'm juvenille.
Devin Grayson normally writes comic books. She normally writes comic books that I don't read because I don't like her writing. She took over the writing chores on one of my very favourite characters, Nightwing, and I had to drop the book, I was so unhappy with her writing on it. Now, I understand that she probably feels kinda like how I do about Nightwing... i.e. she's got a bit of a fetish about him. So while I can totally get on board with that, I still think her writing style stinks, its way too soap operaie. Why did I want to read Inheritance then? Because, way back when, Rich Johnston of Lying in the Gutters fame, posted a couple of passages from this book and they were DELICIOUSLY awful and I decided right then and there I had to read it. Plot doesn't really matter, it has to do with a (made up) foreign dignitary's son nearly being assasinated in Gotham, so Batman, Nightwing, Green Arrow, Arsenal, Aquaman and Tempest team up to find out whodunit. So, with all these heroes and their side kicks running around, you see where the title came from. The thing I took most from this book? Devin must think Green Arrow has bisexual tendencies as she has him comment on how good looking Nightwing is NUMEROUS times, and she is terribly concerned with both Nightwing and Arsenal's sex lives. Unfortunately, she doesn't go into quite salacious enough detail to really make this book worthwhile. As far as superhero porn goes, it wasn't that good.
I'm a big fan of Dave Bidini's. No, not his band, The Rheostatics, but his writing. Another of his books, Tropic of Hockey, ranks up their amongst my favourite books. So, when I heard he'd published a book of erotic hockey stories, well, lets just say I was thrilled and rushed out to buy it as soon as I could. Five Hole Stories is not very long, there's only about five short stories in it, but they're well written if not very... titilating. A few of the stories were even tinged with a bit of sadness; there's nothing graphic about them, and the most controversial one of them got was about a goalie who feels unrequited love for his team star player, a very thinly disguised Wayne Gretzky. I mean, I enjoyed the book, I guess I was just expecting something more... erotic.
Hmm, these reads seem to have left me rather frustrated. lol
Ok, so one was pretty damn short, but still, two books! Two weeks into January!
I'm not going to keep this pace up...
So, what have I read? Well, I read Inheritance by Devin Grayson, and Five Hole Stories by Dave Bidini. What are they about? Well two of my very favourite things, superheroes and hockey, respectively, and even better, there's sex in 'em!
lol. Yes, I'm juvenille.
Devin Grayson normally writes comic books. She normally writes comic books that I don't read because I don't like her writing. She took over the writing chores on one of my very favourite characters, Nightwing, and I had to drop the book, I was so unhappy with her writing on it. Now, I understand that she probably feels kinda like how I do about Nightwing... i.e. she's got a bit of a fetish about him. So while I can totally get on board with that, I still think her writing style stinks, its way too soap operaie. Why did I want to read Inheritance then? Because, way back when, Rich Johnston of Lying in the Gutters fame, posted a couple of passages from this book and they were DELICIOUSLY awful and I decided right then and there I had to read it. Plot doesn't really matter, it has to do with a (made up) foreign dignitary's son nearly being assasinated in Gotham, so Batman, Nightwing, Green Arrow, Arsenal, Aquaman and Tempest team up to find out whodunit. So, with all these heroes and their side kicks running around, you see where the title came from. The thing I took most from this book? Devin must think Green Arrow has bisexual tendencies as she has him comment on how good looking Nightwing is NUMEROUS times, and she is terribly concerned with both Nightwing and Arsenal's sex lives. Unfortunately, she doesn't go into quite salacious enough detail to really make this book worthwhile. As far as superhero porn goes, it wasn't that good.
I'm a big fan of Dave Bidini's. No, not his band, The Rheostatics, but his writing. Another of his books, Tropic of Hockey, ranks up their amongst my favourite books. So, when I heard he'd published a book of erotic hockey stories, well, lets just say I was thrilled and rushed out to buy it as soon as I could. Five Hole Stories is not very long, there's only about five short stories in it, but they're well written if not very... titilating. A few of the stories were even tinged with a bit of sadness; there's nothing graphic about them, and the most controversial one of them got was about a goalie who feels unrequited love for his team star player, a very thinly disguised Wayne Gretzky. I mean, I enjoyed the book, I guess I was just expecting something more... erotic.
Hmm, these reads seem to have left me rather frustrated. lol
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
In the words of Daniel Cook; "Here we are!"
That's right, 2007. So... what did I read in 2006? What was the final count?
Well, 22 new books were read, 20 were re-read, plus one re-read of an epic poem, for a grand total of 43 books read this year...
Wow that seems low. Of course, I chalk this up to numerous things, mainly just having less time to read and my dear G passing on his bad habit of watching television on DVD :)
Of course, this also doesn't keep track of all the comic books I read. With at least 3 or 4 a week, that's a lot of comic books over the year.
I have quite a pile on my bedside table right now, latest Dave Bidini offering; something that could end up being deliciously smutty from Devin Grayson; Gaiman's Anasasi Boys still; and a book on the Cohen brothers, are all things on my reading list for the new year.
Let's start the count again!
That's right, 2007. So... what did I read in 2006? What was the final count?
Well, 22 new books were read, 20 were re-read, plus one re-read of an epic poem, for a grand total of 43 books read this year...
Wow that seems low. Of course, I chalk this up to numerous things, mainly just having less time to read and my dear G passing on his bad habit of watching television on DVD :)
Of course, this also doesn't keep track of all the comic books I read. With at least 3 or 4 a week, that's a lot of comic books over the year.
I have quite a pile on my bedside table right now, latest Dave Bidini offering; something that could end up being deliciously smutty from Devin Grayson; Gaiman's Anasasi Boys still; and a book on the Cohen brothers, are all things on my reading list for the new year.
Let's start the count again!
Monday, November 27, 2006
*insert usual comment about how I haven't updated this blog in awhile...*
Since last update, G and I went on a trip to England, London specifically, and it was wonderful and perfect and everything I could ever have wanted it to be and of course I bought books over there :)
But what have I read since I last updated?
All My Friends are Superheroes by Andrew Kaufman. G lent me this book and it was a fun, quick, little read written by Canadian author Andrew Kaufman. Its a funny little book where the main character is about to loose his wife forever, because she cannot see him since he was made invisible on their wedding day by a rival for his wife's affections. Everyone in the book has a 'superpower' based on the most outstanding aspect of their personalities (i.e. the wife is the Perfectionist) and I found myself wondering what my personality-related-superpower would be and strangely enough, I couldn't come up with one. But anyway, it was a fun book and really enjoyed all the different superheroes (as I also found myself going 'Oh yeah, I know someone like that') and it was a satisfying, happy ending.
Arthur and George by Julian Barnes. Believe it or not, this is NOT an Arthurian-themed book that I picked up in London. This book is about a case of a wrongfully accused and convicted man (one George Edalji) who's cause renowned author Sir Arthur Conan Doyle comes to champion. The book is a very, very interesting look at the lives of two very different men, and infact, it isn't till about 2/3s of the way through that Arthur and George finally meet. I admit, I kept wondering if the crimes George was accused of would end up being linked to the crimes of Jack the Ripper, but that was never done, and I actually found myself happy that they weren't. Its funny though, while I have read some Sherlock Holmes stories and liked them well enough, I've found that I enjoy books where Holmes' creator is a main character very enjoyable (like in the List of Seven) Sir Arthur seemed to be an extremely fascinating character all of himself as well.
I just began Alice Munro's latest offering The View from Castle Rock, which I hope to have finished fairly soon.
Rereads of late includes lots of Anne McCaffery books; Dragonflight, Dragonquest and the MasterHarper of Pern.
Since last update, G and I went on a trip to England, London specifically, and it was wonderful and perfect and everything I could ever have wanted it to be and of course I bought books over there :)
But what have I read since I last updated?
All My Friends are Superheroes by Andrew Kaufman. G lent me this book and it was a fun, quick, little read written by Canadian author Andrew Kaufman. Its a funny little book where the main character is about to loose his wife forever, because she cannot see him since he was made invisible on their wedding day by a rival for his wife's affections. Everyone in the book has a 'superpower' based on the most outstanding aspect of their personalities (i.e. the wife is the Perfectionist) and I found myself wondering what my personality-related-superpower would be and strangely enough, I couldn't come up with one. But anyway, it was a fun book and really enjoyed all the different superheroes (as I also found myself going 'Oh yeah, I know someone like that') and it was a satisfying, happy ending.
Arthur and George by Julian Barnes. Believe it or not, this is NOT an Arthurian-themed book that I picked up in London. This book is about a case of a wrongfully accused and convicted man (one George Edalji) who's cause renowned author Sir Arthur Conan Doyle comes to champion. The book is a very, very interesting look at the lives of two very different men, and infact, it isn't till about 2/3s of the way through that Arthur and George finally meet. I admit, I kept wondering if the crimes George was accused of would end up being linked to the crimes of Jack the Ripper, but that was never done, and I actually found myself happy that they weren't. Its funny though, while I have read some Sherlock Holmes stories and liked them well enough, I've found that I enjoy books where Holmes' creator is a main character very enjoyable (like in the List of Seven) Sir Arthur seemed to be an extremely fascinating character all of himself as well.
I just began Alice Munro's latest offering The View from Castle Rock, which I hope to have finished fairly soon.
Rereads of late includes lots of Anne McCaffery books; Dragonflight, Dragonquest and the MasterHarper of Pern.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Oh my goodness I have been neglecting this thing. Not neglecting reading though of course, I could never do that. But I also do know I haven't been reading as much as I used to. Not replacing it with watching TV though (even though hockey has of course returned to the airwaves now), but the problem with dating someone who has a larger comic book collection than you do, is that there are more comics to read. So yeah, reading a lot of comics, no so much books.
But, books I HAVE finished in the last while... Bad Dirt: Wyoming Stories II by Annie Prouxl and The Last Knight: The Twilight of the Middle Ages and the Birth of the Modern Era by Norman F. Cantor. Both of these books were purchased in Stratford when I went to see Coriolanus with G, and that was in July. Tells you how busy my summer was, huh?
I enjoyed Bad Dirt as much as I liked Prouxl's first short story collection. Many of these stories took place in the same towns as other stories, and that gives them a nice homey (read: claustrophobic) feeling to what is a very large state. I thought it was a nice touch. Some of them had a bit more of a supernatural element to them, which was definitely interesting, and there was still a lot of despicable people getting their comeuppances. And in one story I was tickled to see one of the characters spell his name the same way that G spell's his :)
The Last Knight was a wonderful look at the end of the Middle Ages mainly focused through the life of John of Gaunt, one of the very wealthy, very powerful sons of Edward III. Gaunt was brother to Edward, Prince of Wales (the Black Prince) and one of England's ruling Plantagenet family. He became, through marriage, the Duke of Lancaster, and so became the patriarch of the Lancastrian branch of the Plantagenets, one of the two families who would later become embroiled in the War of the Roses. Anyway, in modern terms, Gaunt would be considered a billionaire, that's how wealthy he was at the time, and like any member of the ruling class, being it part of a medival society or a capitalist one, he was pretty fond of the status quo. That's not to say he didn't also sometimes flirt with progressive thinking, in fact, Gaunt was a patron for quite some time of Chaucer's, so he did promote the arts. But overall, Gaunt was a product of the 1300s and was not quite ready to move into a more modern era, Not that the 1400s were all that modern mind you, but medieval society was definitely changing during the end of Gaunt's era. Anyway yeah, very interesting, historical read. Cantor also has a book out about the Black Plague, which also sound neat, I may have to check it out as well.
I'm also nearly finished One Knight Only, the second of Peter David's Arthurian themed books. Rather less humourous than the first one, this one seems to be David's rather visceral reaction to 9-11. Arthur is now President of the United States, and not only has his administration had to weather an extremely brutal terrorist attack on US soil (David doesn't go into details about the kind of attack, but the 9-11 parallels are inescapable), but also, after the US retaliates against the terrorists, they then make it personal by having Gwen (the First Lady, natch) assasinated. Well, almost assasinated. So of course, Gwen, hovering near death necessitates the need for a Grail Quest. I'm always up for a good Grail Quest, but this one is made quite interesting in that the Grail's new keeper (and I use 'new' in a very loose sense here) is someone who is quite possibly the first 'hero'. And he makes for a very good contrast to Arthur's more modern hero. All in all, its a good read so far, a little bombastic and rah rah America, but overall, its also a good treatise on free will and human rights against dictatorships and whatnot and I am very interested in seeing how it gets all played out.
Also recently, did a comfort rereading of Pamela Dean's Tamlin for the umpteenth time.
Next up on the bedside table is Neil Gaiman's Anasasi Boys.
But, books I HAVE finished in the last while... Bad Dirt: Wyoming Stories II by Annie Prouxl and The Last Knight: The Twilight of the Middle Ages and the Birth of the Modern Era by Norman F. Cantor. Both of these books were purchased in Stratford when I went to see Coriolanus with G, and that was in July. Tells you how busy my summer was, huh?
I enjoyed Bad Dirt as much as I liked Prouxl's first short story collection. Many of these stories took place in the same towns as other stories, and that gives them a nice homey (read: claustrophobic) feeling to what is a very large state. I thought it was a nice touch. Some of them had a bit more of a supernatural element to them, which was definitely interesting, and there was still a lot of despicable people getting their comeuppances. And in one story I was tickled to see one of the characters spell his name the same way that G spell's his :)
The Last Knight was a wonderful look at the end of the Middle Ages mainly focused through the life of John of Gaunt, one of the very wealthy, very powerful sons of Edward III. Gaunt was brother to Edward, Prince of Wales (the Black Prince) and one of England's ruling Plantagenet family. He became, through marriage, the Duke of Lancaster, and so became the patriarch of the Lancastrian branch of the Plantagenets, one of the two families who would later become embroiled in the War of the Roses. Anyway, in modern terms, Gaunt would be considered a billionaire, that's how wealthy he was at the time, and like any member of the ruling class, being it part of a medival society or a capitalist one, he was pretty fond of the status quo. That's not to say he didn't also sometimes flirt with progressive thinking, in fact, Gaunt was a patron for quite some time of Chaucer's, so he did promote the arts. But overall, Gaunt was a product of the 1300s and was not quite ready to move into a more modern era, Not that the 1400s were all that modern mind you, but medieval society was definitely changing during the end of Gaunt's era. Anyway yeah, very interesting, historical read. Cantor also has a book out about the Black Plague, which also sound neat, I may have to check it out as well.
I'm also nearly finished One Knight Only, the second of Peter David's Arthurian themed books. Rather less humourous than the first one, this one seems to be David's rather visceral reaction to 9-11. Arthur is now President of the United States, and not only has his administration had to weather an extremely brutal terrorist attack on US soil (David doesn't go into details about the kind of attack, but the 9-11 parallels are inescapable), but also, after the US retaliates against the terrorists, they then make it personal by having Gwen (the First Lady, natch) assasinated. Well, almost assasinated. So of course, Gwen, hovering near death necessitates the need for a Grail Quest. I'm always up for a good Grail Quest, but this one is made quite interesting in that the Grail's new keeper (and I use 'new' in a very loose sense here) is someone who is quite possibly the first 'hero'. And he makes for a very good contrast to Arthur's more modern hero. All in all, its a good read so far, a little bombastic and rah rah America, but overall, its also a good treatise on free will and human rights against dictatorships and whatnot and I am very interested in seeing how it gets all played out.
Also recently, did a comfort rereading of Pamela Dean's Tamlin for the umpteenth time.
Next up on the bedside table is Neil Gaiman's Anasasi Boys.
Monday, August 14, 2006
I'm really not getting much reading done these days, due to a myriad of reasons. Well, ok, really only one reason, but he's a good one :) However, on my week long holiday spent at the parents' and the cottage, I did manage to read The Devil Wears Prada. I saw the movie a few weeks ago and really, really enjoyed it, so when I saw the book at my parents' place, I dived in. Took me all of a day and a half to read it. It has now been added to my official "The Movie is Better than the Book List". It's actually rare that I find a movie better than a book, I usually always like the book better, but not in the case. I liked the ending of the movie much better and I actually found the main characters of Andy and Miranda much more sympathetic in the movie. Also, the author's (whose name I don't even remember) writing style left me a little cold in places. She definitely went for some rather overly complicated sentences a little too often. Overall, the characters in the movie felt far more fleshed out and I agreed with their decision to amalgamate about 3 separate characters into the one of Nigel, so brilliantly played by Stanely Tucci. The movie also left out a huge subplot about an alcoholic roommate, which, while I understand its importance in the book of displaying how Andy's job was consuming her life to the point where she wasn't there to help her friend, I thought was demonstrated just as ably in the movie through a stronger plotline concerning Andy's boyfriend. Anyway yeah, movie, great, book, not so much.
I also started The Mother Tongue by Bill Bryson. I really enjoyed Bryson's book "A Brief History of Nearly Everything", so when I saw he had written about the beginnings of the English language, I thought I just had to pick it up. Of course, I'm not really learning anything new, most of what he talks about here was covered during my Old English course at university, but Bryson definitley has an easier way of explaining things than good ol' Professor John Chamberlain did. But of course, Bryson isn't also trying to teach a bunch of second year students how to speak and read Old English :)
I also started The Mother Tongue by Bill Bryson. I really enjoyed Bryson's book "A Brief History of Nearly Everything", so when I saw he had written about the beginnings of the English language, I thought I just had to pick it up. Of course, I'm not really learning anything new, most of what he talks about here was covered during my Old English course at university, but Bryson definitley has an easier way of explaining things than good ol' Professor John Chamberlain did. But of course, Bryson isn't also trying to teach a bunch of second year students how to speak and read Old English :)
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
I went to Stratford (Ontario) last Sunday to get my Shakespeare on and it was a fabulous time. My main reason for going was because Colm Feore, undoubtedly my favourite Canadian actor, was back at Stratford after an absence of some years, and I was determined to see him in something. He's playing the lead in one of the Bard's lesser known plays, Coriolanus, and he was magnificent as always.
So, what does this have to do with what I'm reading? Simple, I'm now reading Coriolanus. I read it once, years ago, in university, but I wanted to read it again. The main character, Caius Martius, is unabashedly a great warrior. His entire being, his entire raison d'etre, is tied to him being a soldier. It is what he is good at, and he knows this and is secure in this. He has nothing but disdain for the common populace of Rome (mainly because they do not fight) and it is because of this that he gets into deep trouble when he attempts to become a politician. It is often said that this is Shakespeare's most political of plays, even more so than Julius Ceasar or Henry V, and I have to agree. Rome as a city, as a political entity in herself, is just as much of a character as anyone else.
And Martius himself is a very interesting character. I just finished the first true battle scene with him in it, and the way he rallies his troops, by almost shaming them into being brave, is just so different from Henry V (who is probably my favourite Shakespearean soldier) who's St. Crispian's Day speech spurs on his hopelessly outnumbered army by stressing brotherhood and the honour of fighting alongside one another. Not so Martius, while he does lead by example, he sees very little brotherhood amongst his own army, in fact, he feels closest comradeship with his greatest enemy, Aufidius. He and Martius have an intense, love/hate relationship that one could easily make a case for becoming sexual by the play's third act. It's fascinating.
I also picked up a couple of other books, Wyoming Stories, another collection of short stories by Annie Proulx, and a book called The Last Knight, which is about the end of the 14th century. I look forward to getting to both of those.
I'm also re-reading The Mirror of her Dreams by Stephen Donaldson, mainly as research as I get back to writing my novel. I had always seen my heroine as slightly... reactionary at the beginning, but I don't want her to be completely passive, because I find that unlikeable. Terisa, in these books, is completely passive at the start, and quite unlikeable, I've always found I wanted to give her a good shake. But eventually, she does find her talent and is able to break out of her passivity, so I find she's not a bad model to look at. But I don't want quite her extreme, so she's also a good example of what I don't want to do.
So, what does this have to do with what I'm reading? Simple, I'm now reading Coriolanus. I read it once, years ago, in university, but I wanted to read it again. The main character, Caius Martius, is unabashedly a great warrior. His entire being, his entire raison d'etre, is tied to him being a soldier. It is what he is good at, and he knows this and is secure in this. He has nothing but disdain for the common populace of Rome (mainly because they do not fight) and it is because of this that he gets into deep trouble when he attempts to become a politician. It is often said that this is Shakespeare's most political of plays, even more so than Julius Ceasar or Henry V, and I have to agree. Rome as a city, as a political entity in herself, is just as much of a character as anyone else.
And Martius himself is a very interesting character. I just finished the first true battle scene with him in it, and the way he rallies his troops, by almost shaming them into being brave, is just so different from Henry V (who is probably my favourite Shakespearean soldier) who's St. Crispian's Day speech spurs on his hopelessly outnumbered army by stressing brotherhood and the honour of fighting alongside one another. Not so Martius, while he does lead by example, he sees very little brotherhood amongst his own army, in fact, he feels closest comradeship with his greatest enemy, Aufidius. He and Martius have an intense, love/hate relationship that one could easily make a case for becoming sexual by the play's third act. It's fascinating.
I also picked up a couple of other books, Wyoming Stories, another collection of short stories by Annie Proulx, and a book called The Last Knight, which is about the end of the 14th century. I look forward to getting to both of those.
I'm also re-reading The Mirror of her Dreams by Stephen Donaldson, mainly as research as I get back to writing my novel. I had always seen my heroine as slightly... reactionary at the beginning, but I don't want her to be completely passive, because I find that unlikeable. Terisa, in these books, is completely passive at the start, and quite unlikeable, I've always found I wanted to give her a good shake. But eventually, she does find her talent and is able to break out of her passivity, so I find she's not a bad model to look at. But I don't want quite her extreme, so she's also a good example of what I don't want to do.
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
Greetings.
Not much new I realize. I'm still slogging through A Year in the Life of Shakespeare: 1599. Well, not really slogging, it is a good read, but I've found I havent' wanted to lug the big hardcover on the subway, so I'm doing a lot of re-reading too. I had wanted to finish A Year... when I was at my aunt's farm for a week, but I just never managed to find the time to read, we were just always doing things.
I've re-read the entire 'Kelts in Space' trilogy (the Silver Branch, the Copper Crown, the Throne of Scone), which, despite how the main character is disgustedly good at EVERYTHING, I still enjoy. Patricia Keneally may be a bit loopy, but I think she did manage to craft an interesting world overall.
I also read the first trade of a zombie comic called The Walking Dead. I'm not a huge zombie fan or anything, but I really enjoy Robert Kirkman's other comic book, Invincible, so I thought I'd give this one a try too. I have this vague feeling it gave me nightmares (I don't remember my dreams often), so I'm not sure I'll be going much farther than the first trade.
I was also given a very funny book, the Batman Handbook: The Ultimate Training Guide, by Scott Beatty, which is basically a very fun book that teaches you how to be Batman. And yes, I have always wanted to be Batman.
Yup, that's all for now.
Not much new I realize. I'm still slogging through A Year in the Life of Shakespeare: 1599. Well, not really slogging, it is a good read, but I've found I havent' wanted to lug the big hardcover on the subway, so I'm doing a lot of re-reading too. I had wanted to finish A Year... when I was at my aunt's farm for a week, but I just never managed to find the time to read, we were just always doing things.
I've re-read the entire 'Kelts in Space' trilogy (the Silver Branch, the Copper Crown, the Throne of Scone), which, despite how the main character is disgustedly good at EVERYTHING, I still enjoy. Patricia Keneally may be a bit loopy, but I think she did manage to craft an interesting world overall.
I also read the first trade of a zombie comic called The Walking Dead. I'm not a huge zombie fan or anything, but I really enjoy Robert Kirkman's other comic book, Invincible, so I thought I'd give this one a try too. I have this vague feeling it gave me nightmares (I don't remember my dreams often), so I'm not sure I'll be going much farther than the first trade.
I was also given a very funny book, the Batman Handbook: The Ultimate Training Guide, by Scott Beatty, which is basically a very fun book that teaches you how to be Batman. And yes, I have always wanted to be Batman.
Yup, that's all for now.
Thursday, June 22, 2006
Been awhile since I've posted anything here I see. I have been reading quite a bit in the meantime, but a lot of it has been the 'comfort food' of re-reads.
I've burned my way through five Outsider trades. Not bad, not great, not inspired enough to pick up the series regularly, that's for sure.
Re-read all of Byron's Don Juan; a whack of Shakespeare's Sonnets and Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. Of course I read that Potter book when it came out a few years back, and I remember it immediately becoming my least favourite of the bunch. But upon re-read, I found it wasn't that bad. If you go into it knowing that Harry is a pratt throughout, I found I was more able to see WHY Harry was a pratt throughout. Everything was just finally getting to him, and he IS only a 16 year-old-boy. The shit that kid's gone through, I think I can excuse his pratiness. And man, Delores Umbridge was a pretty good villian.
I did finally pick up a new book yesterday, which I started this morning; A Year in the Life of Shakespeare: 1599, by James Shapiro. Its fictionalized history, which I've always had a fondness for, and its about Shakespeare, so how can I go wrong? Shapiro has decided to focus on this year in Shakespeare's life because this is the year he writes Henry V (which is one of my very favourite plays), Julius Ceasar, As You Like It, and his masterpiece, Hamlet. It is a year of incredible creative growth for Shakespeare, and Shapiro wants to examine the history of the year in which Shakespeare was living and see if he can find a clue as to why this became an almost seminal year in Shakespeare's writing. I thought this was an admirable thesis, and so I'm very interested in reading it.
Speaking of a thesis, I started my hypothetical one as well. That's right, my 'prove Lancelot was indeed the best knight ever by doing a sports-like statistical analysis of all tournaments and battles the knights were in.' I'm about half way through the first volume, and right now, my poor, tattered Penguin editions of Le Morte D'Arthur are now furiously scribbled in all over as well. But I'm having a great time, and at some point, I'm going to talk to one of the mathematitians I work with about how to go about the actual statistical side of things. I also told Nat about this entire endevour of mine, and she thought it was a great idea. Nice to hear that from a fellow academic :)
I've burned my way through five Outsider trades. Not bad, not great, not inspired enough to pick up the series regularly, that's for sure.
Re-read all of Byron's Don Juan; a whack of Shakespeare's Sonnets and Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. Of course I read that Potter book when it came out a few years back, and I remember it immediately becoming my least favourite of the bunch. But upon re-read, I found it wasn't that bad. If you go into it knowing that Harry is a pratt throughout, I found I was more able to see WHY Harry was a pratt throughout. Everything was just finally getting to him, and he IS only a 16 year-old-boy. The shit that kid's gone through, I think I can excuse his pratiness. And man, Delores Umbridge was a pretty good villian.
I did finally pick up a new book yesterday, which I started this morning; A Year in the Life of Shakespeare: 1599, by James Shapiro. Its fictionalized history, which I've always had a fondness for, and its about Shakespeare, so how can I go wrong? Shapiro has decided to focus on this year in Shakespeare's life because this is the year he writes Henry V (which is one of my very favourite plays), Julius Ceasar, As You Like It, and his masterpiece, Hamlet. It is a year of incredible creative growth for Shakespeare, and Shapiro wants to examine the history of the year in which Shakespeare was living and see if he can find a clue as to why this became an almost seminal year in Shakespeare's writing. I thought this was an admirable thesis, and so I'm very interested in reading it.
Speaking of a thesis, I started my hypothetical one as well. That's right, my 'prove Lancelot was indeed the best knight ever by doing a sports-like statistical analysis of all tournaments and battles the knights were in.' I'm about half way through the first volume, and right now, my poor, tattered Penguin editions of Le Morte D'Arthur are now furiously scribbled in all over as well. But I'm having a great time, and at some point, I'm going to talk to one of the mathematitians I work with about how to go about the actual statistical side of things. I also told Nat about this entire endevour of mine, and she thought it was a great idea. Nice to hear that from a fellow academic :)
Monday, June 05, 2006
Ok, since last post I have indeed finished Bury the Chains. VERY good book. Has made me want to swear off eating sugar for good, but I know that's damned near impossible these days. Funny thing is, while reading the book, the CBC rebroadcast their 'Big Sugar' documentary, which looked at modern day sugar-cane plantations, and all the ways sugar is a very big problem in our world. Those who harvest sugar-cane on modern day plantations are living a life of slavery in all but name. Its like nothing really changed over the past two hundred years, and Bury the Chains have said that many of the Caribbean nations (like Haiti) have never really recovered from the slave rebellions that destroyed much of the island's wealth. The show Big Sugar also heavily referenced Bury the Chains, as they showed the abolitionist movement was very directly tied to sugar. They also mentioned how WHO had been trying to get a bill tabled at the United Nations about sanctioning big sugar, in order to protect children from the growing obesity problem, but the US refused to sign it and threatened to withdraw funding from WHO should anyone mention it again. Guess who is a large contributer to the Republicans? Yeah, sugar companies...
After finishing Bury the Chains, I started Knight Life by Peter David. Not bad at all and a fun little read as a re-awakened Arthur runs for mayor of New York City. I did have a slight panic attack worrying that perhaps this book might be too close to what I've come up with for the plot of my romance novel, but fortunately PAD's Lancelot is a non-factor in the book, and although Gwen might have some characteristics in common with my heroine, I think they're still different enough. The Arthur in this book was pretty good, and came off as very charismatic. Morgan was an ehn villainess, but I loved that Mordred was a top PR man. He was great. So yeah, overall, a nice book, I'll probably end up picking up the sequal, One Knight Only.
I've also been re-reading Byron's Don Juan (don't ask; personal reasons). I read this originally in second-year university, I had to do my Romantics seminar on it. I had an episode of Cheers taped where Diane was doing her psychology thesis on why Sam was a text-book case of Don Juan syndrome. Sam was a compulsive womanizer, and so yes, was a perfect example of the psychological Don Juan. However, as I read through Byron's poem, I realized that his Don Juan was not the compulsive womanizer that Sam was, rather Byron's Don Juan was more of a romantic, and it was usually always the women who pursued him. Byron's Don Juan was almost a niaf, and I found that rather fascinating, given the almost negative connotations being called a 'Don Juan' has in modern society. Byron's Don Juan isn't really what we think of as a stereotypical Don Juan. It is a lovely poem, full of romantic imagery, but also quite humourous as well. I'm having fun re-reading it. Oh, and way back when, I got an A on that Romantics seminar. Thanks Cheers :)
After finishing Bury the Chains, I started Knight Life by Peter David. Not bad at all and a fun little read as a re-awakened Arthur runs for mayor of New York City. I did have a slight panic attack worrying that perhaps this book might be too close to what I've come up with for the plot of my romance novel, but fortunately PAD's Lancelot is a non-factor in the book, and although Gwen might have some characteristics in common with my heroine, I think they're still different enough. The Arthur in this book was pretty good, and came off as very charismatic. Morgan was an ehn villainess, but I loved that Mordred was a top PR man. He was great. So yeah, overall, a nice book, I'll probably end up picking up the sequal, One Knight Only.
I've also been re-reading Byron's Don Juan (don't ask; personal reasons). I read this originally in second-year university, I had to do my Romantics seminar on it. I had an episode of Cheers taped where Diane was doing her psychology thesis on why Sam was a text-book case of Don Juan syndrome. Sam was a compulsive womanizer, and so yes, was a perfect example of the psychological Don Juan. However, as I read through Byron's poem, I realized that his Don Juan was not the compulsive womanizer that Sam was, rather Byron's Don Juan was more of a romantic, and it was usually always the women who pursued him. Byron's Don Juan was almost a niaf, and I found that rather fascinating, given the almost negative connotations being called a 'Don Juan' has in modern society. Byron's Don Juan isn't really what we think of as a stereotypical Don Juan. It is a lovely poem, full of romantic imagery, but also quite humourous as well. I'm having fun re-reading it. Oh, and way back when, I got an A on that Romantics seminar. Thanks Cheers :)
Monday, May 15, 2006
I started Bury the Chains, by Adam Hochschild this weekend. I'd heard about this book quite some time ago, meant to pick it up, but then completely forgot about it until I saw Hochschild interviewed on the CBC last week. Then I remembered I wanted to read this book and picked it up on Friday.
Bury the Chains looks at what was probably the world's first organized social campaign, the campaign to abolish the slave trade in Britian during the late 1700s. What is so amazing about this is that nothing like this movement had ever happened before, and those who started it were moved to do so because of the suffering of people half a world away from them. It is a remarkable thing that we, in this modern day and age, supposedly take for granted, but when we allow things like the genocides in Rwanda and Darfur to occur, well, it seems like things haven't changed all that much.
But so far, its a fascinating book. We've met some of the major players in the movement, men who were moved by the hardships and brutality suffered by slaves, some of whom had been involved in the slave trade themselves. But most interesting of all, was that the movement was really started by, and organized by, Quakers. I had never known this and found it fascinating. These men started just about every practice we take for granted today as being part of a social, reform movement; petitions, letter-writing campaigns, fund-raising, even the forerunner to political slogan-type campaign buttons.
Anyway, I'm only about half way through it, and the main players are still organizing themselves and are gathering amunition to use against the slave trade (they found huge support in the pre-Industrial Revolution city of Manchester, one of the few cities in England whose economy was not dependent upon the slave trade) and in trying to win over all-important Anglicans (for only Anglicans could vote and be Members of Parliament) to their cause.
The sections about the treatment of the slaves and what they went through is particularly horrifying, but well balanced with the more uplifting sections about the successes the abolitionists were having. It is a good strategy in the narrative, for the brutality does not become too much that it just makes you simply want to stop reading. You experience outrage, but you want to continue to see what happens and how the inevitable end, the abolition of slavery in the British Empire, comes about.
Bury the Chains looks at what was probably the world's first organized social campaign, the campaign to abolish the slave trade in Britian during the late 1700s. What is so amazing about this is that nothing like this movement had ever happened before, and those who started it were moved to do so because of the suffering of people half a world away from them. It is a remarkable thing that we, in this modern day and age, supposedly take for granted, but when we allow things like the genocides in Rwanda and Darfur to occur, well, it seems like things haven't changed all that much.
But so far, its a fascinating book. We've met some of the major players in the movement, men who were moved by the hardships and brutality suffered by slaves, some of whom had been involved in the slave trade themselves. But most interesting of all, was that the movement was really started by, and organized by, Quakers. I had never known this and found it fascinating. These men started just about every practice we take for granted today as being part of a social, reform movement; petitions, letter-writing campaigns, fund-raising, even the forerunner to political slogan-type campaign buttons.
Anyway, I'm only about half way through it, and the main players are still organizing themselves and are gathering amunition to use against the slave trade (they found huge support in the pre-Industrial Revolution city of Manchester, one of the few cities in England whose economy was not dependent upon the slave trade) and in trying to win over all-important Anglicans (for only Anglicans could vote and be Members of Parliament) to their cause.
The sections about the treatment of the slaves and what they went through is particularly horrifying, but well balanced with the more uplifting sections about the successes the abolitionists were having. It is a good strategy in the narrative, for the brutality does not become too much that it just makes you simply want to stop reading. You experience outrage, but you want to continue to see what happens and how the inevitable end, the abolition of slavery in the British Empire, comes about.
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
Whew, I was right, hockey playoffs have completely screwed up my reading time. Even with my favourite teams out, I'm still watching hockey. I'm so weak :)
Plus, I've finally been able to start riding my bike into work again, so no subway to read on.
So, I haven't really started anything new since finishing Mad Merlin. In fact, I went back for a re-read on two of my favourite Arthurian books, The Child Queen and The High Queen. They're told from Guinevere's perspective, and she's not bad in these books. A little drama-queenesque, but definitely not as completely unsympathetic as she is often portrayed. And the Lancelot in these books is a hot-head, and I like that about him. These books also have a GREAT Arthur. He's definitely one of my favourite Arthur's ever; very real, very personable, very... Arthur.
But yes, I still have to launch myself into Peter David's Knight Life. That will be next.
I've also started the painstaking process of carefully re-reading (and taking notes) Le Morte D'Arthur. I've recently had this wild idea that I would like to 'prove' that Lancelot was the best knight, statistically speaking. I mean, Malory is great with listing off EVERYONE who fought in tournaments; who unhorsed who, who fought who on the ground, etc., and I thought it would be fun to go through Le Morte D'Arthur and actually do sports like stats for the various knights. If I ever did get the opportunity to go and do my Master's Degree, this is completely what my thesis would be. Yes, I'm weird :)
Plus, I've finally been able to start riding my bike into work again, so no subway to read on.
So, I haven't really started anything new since finishing Mad Merlin. In fact, I went back for a re-read on two of my favourite Arthurian books, The Child Queen and The High Queen. They're told from Guinevere's perspective, and she's not bad in these books. A little drama-queenesque, but definitely not as completely unsympathetic as she is often portrayed. And the Lancelot in these books is a hot-head, and I like that about him. These books also have a GREAT Arthur. He's definitely one of my favourite Arthur's ever; very real, very personable, very... Arthur.
But yes, I still have to launch myself into Peter David's Knight Life. That will be next.
I've also started the painstaking process of carefully re-reading (and taking notes) Le Morte D'Arthur. I've recently had this wild idea that I would like to 'prove' that Lancelot was the best knight, statistically speaking. I mean, Malory is great with listing off EVERYONE who fought in tournaments; who unhorsed who, who fought who on the ground, etc., and I thought it would be fun to go through Le Morte D'Arthur and actually do sports like stats for the various knights. If I ever did get the opportunity to go and do my Master's Degree, this is completely what my thesis would be. Yes, I'm weird :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)