In which our Goodreader comments on (but doesn't actually review) several of the stories within
HEART OF DARKNESS: After reading King Leopold's Ghost: In which our Goodreader comments on (but doesn't actually review) several of the stories within
HEART OF DARKNESS: After reading King Leopold's Ghost: A Story of Greed, Terror, and Heroism in Colonial Africa, I couldn't say farewell to Belgium and the Congo without rereading Conrad's classic, (which I first - and last - read some 40 years ago, when I was considerably younger and smarter). Still some dense, elegant, and dreamlike - or perhaps more correctly, nightmarish - writing here, but frankly not a whole lot in terms of plot. And so it's more impressive than I remembered that Coppola was able to turn this into a full-length movie; largely, it turns out, because so much of what we remember from the film - the nightmare episode at the bridge, the helicopter attack on the village, the tiger; the "extended cut" scenes with the Playboy bunnies and the French colonist - don't have any equivalents in the book. One thing that -surprisingly - did make it from book to movie is much of "the Russian's" dialogue. I had originally thought that was mainly Dennis Hopper's stoned improvising, but turns out it was largely Conrad's - at least in tone, if not word for word. Otherwise, I was also surprised that Kurtz actually plays such a small role in the book - he's more a background presence than a physical character.
Am getting the 3-hour director's cut of "Apocalypse" from the library, and would also like to watch the accompanying documentary made at the same time by Coppola's wife, "Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse." Our library also has another book called Readings on Heart of Darkness, which at 200+ pages is nearly twice as long as the original story itself; and which I may at least give a look, as it can be fun to see what hidden themes and subtleties "the professionals" find there that I totally missed.
THE SECRET SHARER: First time reading this one. For whatever reason, this story is often published together with Heart of Darkness - probably because the combined length makes for a barely decent paperback. Interesting but unremarkable (to me at least) short story, also told in a dreamy style with some serious homoerotic overtones. I was originally drawn to the Southeast Asian setting - but turns out that plays absolutely no part in the story; it could just as easily have been set off the coast of Iceland or anywhere else in the world.
And finally…LORD JIM: Also read this back in the early '80s, when I'd been just a few years in Taiwan and was still trying to learn "the neighborhood." Remember quite liking it - I gave it an unreviewed "4 stars" when I originally listed it on Goodreads a decade ago - but can no longer distinguish in my memory between the book and the movie, neither of which I've revisited in a LONG time. I seem to remember a lot of homosexual currents there as well - but not sure if that was Conrad or just Peter O'Toole, who between "Jim" and "Lawrence" seemed to specialize in such conflicted characters for a while there.
THE BOOK ITSELF: This is one unwieldy monster of a Barnes & Noble omnibus, published in the mid-'90s that I picked up…somewhere. It also contains the novels Nostromo and Nigger of the "Narcissus," as well as a half dozen short stories, so that even at 900+ pages it's still set in ridiculously small type. So while I'll stick to my original 4 stars for both Heart and Jim, and give Sharer a generous 3; the book itself is one I probably won't revisit, and so it's afraid it’s off to the used bookstore, as I need the shelf space....more
I never read ERB growing up; and while I did read a few of the "John Carter" books last year, Tarzan just never crossed my radar. However, after havinI never read ERB growing up; and while I did read a few of the "John Carter" books last year, Tarzan just never crossed my radar. However, after having recently read Leopold, I wanted to rewatch the 2016 "Legend of Tarzan" film as I remembered it being specifically tied to the Belgians in the Congo…and from there it was a short step to deciding to read at least one of the Tarzan books.
And turns out, one is probably enough. Quite enjoyable just to get the original story and see how clunky "popular fiction" was back then…but think I'm good now.
I was surprised to see that Burroughs also referenced Leopold in the Congo…the original mission of Tarzan's father was in fact to go to Africa to "investigate the unfair treatment of black British subjects by the officers of a friendly European power," while much later Burroughs compares chief Mbonga's' treatment of his captured white prisoners to the "still crueler barbarities practiced upon them and theirs by the white officers of that arch hypocrite, Leopold II of Belgium, because of whose atrocities they had fled the Congo Free State," so extra points for that. But otherwise, this is one dated racist, sexist, white-supremacist story.
Still…have to admit it was kinda fun, and not what I was expecting - or at least not what I'd learned from watching various Tarzan movies over the years. The whole "his parents were shipwrecked" story? Nope - abandoned there by pirates; and then a totally different set of pirates some twenty years later abandon Jane Porter and Tarzan's actual cousin in the EXACT SAME SPOT - just one of many totally unbelievable events, (which also includes Tarzan's not only teaching himself to read and write from a dictionary and a few picture books, but then also figuring out how to spell "T-A-R-Z-A-N" even though he had no idea what letters sounded like).
Also, the story ends in…Wisconsin? Did NOT see that coming; nor did I see the big cliff-hanger ending, (which also gets points for being so totally unexpected). And yeah, people did act weird back then, with goofy ideas about honor and class and manners and "betrothal promises," to the point where I started thinking that I'd probably prefer living in the jungle, too…
Anyway, glad I read it but definitely won't be reading more…although I DO really recommend the movie - at least the latest one, and okay, probably the Disney version as well, if only for the Phil Collins songs and Mark Mancina score…although what's with Disney naming the bad guy in their version "Clayton"? I mean, that was Tarzan's name - seriously, how messed up is that?
[image] (Tarzan then and now - someone's been hitting the gym!) __________________________________
THIS EDITION: Have to mention that this "Signet Classics" version is one odd and ugly bird. Originally published in 1999, it inexplicably includes an introduction written by Gore Vidal way back in 1963 (which compares Tarzan to his "contemporaries," James Bond and Mike Hammer); this 2008 updated edition then also includes a somewhat-more-relevant afterword by Michael Meyer, (a professor of English at the University of Connecticut). As to the book's design…it isn't so much minimalist as non-existent; the combination of that ugly green and unkerned type (the "T" in "Tarzan" and "A" in "Ape" are way too far off), probably makes this the least attractive Tarzan of all 3,400+ editions listed on GR. But hey, that's the one the library had, so that's the one I read. Still - almost took a star off for the complete lack of effort on Signet's part, since there are probably few stories out there with more inherent visual potential :(...more
First read this (and saw the Academy Award-winning movie) nearly 50 years ago, but then recently saw my son in a community theatre production down in First read this (and saw the Academy Award-winning movie) nearly 50 years ago, but then recently saw my son in a community theatre production down in New Market, Virginia (where he played Charlie's father) and was surprised by how much I had forgotten, and so thought i'd revisit the book.
While the larger story of Charlie Gordon is as touching and ultimately tragic as ever, parts of it haven't aged particularly well. The frequent use of "retard" and "moron" by the scientists themselves is jarring to today's ear; Charlie's rather bizarre explorations of his burgeoning sexuality seemed (to me at least) overly melodramatic if not downright bizarre; and the whole middle section seemed to be more preachy than dramatic.
But with the entire book presented as Charlie's self-written "progress reports," the first section where he morphs from a severely handicapped young man to a full on genius is well-handled, and then the final section where he loses it all again is genuinely heart-breaking. So while I don't feel this has held up as well as other books of that period dealing with similar subjects (I'm thinking right now of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest), it probably still deserves its standing as a genuine classic. And so I'm leaving my original 4-star rating (based solely on my half-century-old memories) rather than drop it down to the 3 stars it probably more realistically deserves.
Merged review:
First read this (and saw the Academy Award-winning movie) nearly 50 years ago, but then recently saw my son in a community theatre production down in New Market, Virginia (where he played Charlie's father) and was surprised by how much I had forgotten, and so thought i'd revisit the book.
While the larger story of Charlie Gordon is as touching and ultimately tragic as ever, parts of it haven't aged particularly well. The frequent use of "retard" and "moron" by the scientists themselves is jarring to today's ear; Charlie's rather bizarre explorations of his burgeoning sexuality seemed (to me at least) overly melodramatic if not downright bizarre; and the whole middle section seemed to be more preachy than dramatic.
But with the entire book presented as Charlie's self-written "progress reports," the first section where he morphs from a severely handicapped young man to a full on genius is well-handled, and then the final section where he loses it all again is genuinely heart-breaking. So while I don't feel this has held up as well as other books of that period dealing with similar subjects (I'm thinking right now of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest), it probably still deserves its standing as a genuine classic. And so I'm leaving my original 4-star rating (based solely on my half-century-old memories) rather than drop it down to the 3 stars it probably more realistically deserves....more
Don't remember a thing about this, or even reading it in the first place - but my old Taiwan diaries show that I apparently did. So - listing it, but Don't remember a thing about this, or even reading it in the first place - but my old Taiwan diaries show that I apparently did. So - listing it, but no rating because...well, obviously....more
Needed an easy listen, and having just reread MARVEL's outstanding Eric Shanower/Skottie Young graphic novel version, I was curious to see just how clNeeded an easy listen, and having just reread MARVEL's outstanding Eric Shanower/Skottie Young graphic novel version, I was curious to see just how closely the comic followed the original. And the not-unexpected result: "writer" Shanower followed it EXACTLY, to the point where all the dialogue in the comic was lifted direct from the book.
Baum's writing has aged just about as well as John R. Neill's franky creepy "Maxwell Parrish-like" illustrations; i.e., they are SO 19th century. But there's no slighting Baum's imagination, especially in the breathtaking cast of original characters he developed over the years. Still, since the stories track so closely, IMHO there's absolutely NO reason to go to the originals when you can read the absolutely gorgeous MARVEL versions of all six "classic" Oz stories.
Three-plus stars for the book/writing itself, but rounding up for the sheer level of creativity....more
Got off to a real 5-star start with the first chapter, but then drove straight off a cliff. Heinlein does a great job of imagining interplanetary combGot off to a real 5-star start with the first chapter, but then drove straight off a cliff. Heinlein does a great job of imagining interplanetary combat and future mil-tech, literally dropping us into a raid on an alien city of humanoid "Skinnies" - but then after 20 pages he leaps back in time to waste 100+ pages telling the excruciating story of Johnny Rico's journey from rich kid to trained "M.I." (Mobile Infantryman). After that, there's another chapter of combat - finally against the more famous "Bugs" - but then he quickly sends Johnny back to school - specifically Officer Candidate's School - for another endless section, only returning to war in the last 40 pages.
This book is considered "controversial" (says so right on the cover), but I'm not really sure why. It's fiction, so the author is allowed to choose whatever POV he wants - neo-Fascist, pro-corporal punishment, apparently racist (although in what war have we not demonized and insulted our enemies?); but much less than controversial, I just found it BORING. I ended up skipping large chunks of the OCS section, in which Heinlein apparently flogs his own views on society, politics, the military…not really sure whatall because, you know, skipped large chunks. But every time I did check back in and read a few paragraphs, it was just a real snooze fest.
Would have been better if Heinlein had spent less time preaching and more time, I dunno, plotting - as there is precious little real story here, much less any back story. Why did the Bugs decide to attack humans in the first place; why were the Skinnies allied to the Bugs rather than their more human relatives? And how the hell did the spider-like Bugs develop space travel technology in the first place?? I mean - where are the opposable thumbs??
[image]
Anyway.
This book was certainly influential (or so says Wiki and many other reviews), as it was apparently one of the first real military-based sci-fi novels. Certainly Bobbie Draper's Goliath armor and fighting style in "The Expanse" is a direct descendant of Heinlein's powered armor; and his overall "war against weird aliens" led directly to future - and far better - books like Max Barry's 2021 Providence. But just because I appreciate something for being groundbreaking, that doesn't mean I have to enjoy it in and of itself, (I'm also looking at you, original "Mad Max" movie, as well as - dare I say it? - The Beatles).
The only good news, I guess, is that at least I'm NOT tempted to watch the movie…...more
Most Americans probably never gave conservative - much less militant - Islam a thought prior to the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. And even then, frMost Americans probably never gave conservative - much less militant - Islam a thought prior to the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. And even then, from 1980-2001 the mujahadeen were seen as independence-loving, anti-Communist freedom fighters, as portrayed in such books as Ken Follett’s Lie Down with Lions and Gaz Hunter’s The Shooting Gallery, or in films like “Rambo 3.”
But the British, with their centuries of global colonial adventurism, have long understood the power (if not outright threat) of awoken religious fervor, be it the Mahdi’s Army in Sudan, or China’s Taiping Rebellion, (the bloodiest civil war in world history, which was fought concurrently with - and largely laid the groundwork for the British to win - the Second Opium War).
Point being, as an American living in a post-9/11 U.S., I was struck by the timeliness of the basic plotline of Greenmantle; i.e., Germany’s plans during the First World War to foment a messianic, perhaps “Taliban-like” Muslim uprising aimed at throwing the Middle East, North Africa and pre-partition India into chaos and therefore distracting the Allies from the war in Europe.* The fact that the book was published in 1916 and therefore had a direct – if immeasurable – impact on America’s decision to join the war just makes it even more historically relevant.
That said, however, as literature this story probably hasn’t held up as well as other classics, either of its day or in the overall spy genre. As in Buchan’s earlier and famous Hannay book, The 39 Steps, our hero spends the bulk of the story either escaping or avoiding capture in the first place, here running across Eastern Europe and Turkey instead of the Scottish Highlands. The plot itself is largely an ill-defined McGuffin – “the Germans are planning something, so find out what it is and…stop it?” – to get Hannay to put in a Flashman-esque appearance at the battle or Erzurum, with WAY too many coincidental meetings along the way; for four people wandering separately across Europe, these knuckleheads seem to bump into each other on a daily basis.
Plus, I also had a continuing problem with the character of Hilda von Einem, who is consistently described as an evil, crazy, devilish, fanatical, etc., seductress; whereas in fact she really just comes across as…I dunno, a generic female character – not even that much of a “bad guy.”
It's always tough to review books written over 100 years ago when viewed through our modern lens, but I’ve frankly enjoyed other stories from that period – Kim, The Lost World, even A Princess of Mars – more. So a sold 3-3.5 stars I guess, but that should be enough Buchan for a while. * And while there are certainly numerous books written about the role of militant Islam in WWI – most notably Peter Hopkirk’s Like Hidden Fire – I didn’t realize that this was well-known enough to be used as source material for contemporaneous fiction.
NOTES ON THE AUDIOBOOK(S): Out library only had this on audio, but offered two versions. I started with this one narrated by Christian Rodska, which wasn’t bad; his Hannay sounded a little too upper-class prim and proper, but Rodska did a good job with his Scottish - and later Boer - accents. But then, as soon as he came to the characters of Blenkiron and Stumm, all bets were off – he suddenly became all gravelly and shouty and just over-the-top unlistenable, to the point where I went back and downloaded the other audiobook, narrated by Robert Whitfield. And this one also started out fine, with a stronger Hannay voice…but then as soon as Whitfield got to any of the non-Brit characters is was just WTF??. His American, Germans, Scots, Turks and South Africans all sounded like interchangeable “non-English foreigners,” and so I switched again back to the first book and just suffered through the Stumm/Blenkiron passages whenever they appeared, (and I do mean suffered).
And then turns out, Richard Whitfield is in fact Simon Vance recording under a different name; Vance being the narrator of the Kingsley Amis James Bond story Colonel Sun, where I similarly criticized the narration for its ersatz accents...so at least I’m consistent in my opinions here, even if Vance/Whitfield isn’t with his voices. (BTW, he also records under “Richard Matthews” – so consider yourself warned.)
Also, this audiobook? With the biplane on the cover? I guess that says "World War I," but there's not an aircraft in the entire story. Just sayin'....more
For a guy who writes short books, George Higgins isn't afraid to waste space. He's spend two pages talking about the right (and wrong) way to make a cFor a guy who writes short books, George Higgins isn't afraid to waste space. He's spend two pages talking about the right (and wrong) way to make a cheese sandwich, or three pages discussing what a nice guy the (totally unimportant to the story) porn dealer is. And yet it is such diversions that make his stories so real.
He is most famous (and rightfully so) for his dialogue, which rings true because here too he never goes for the obvious, move-the-story-forward response, but instead lets his characters ramble, dissemble, contradict themselves. Where another writer might just say "no" in response to the question "that gonna be a problem?," Higgins gives us this:
"I don't know. I'm waiting to hear. Maybe not. Hell, how do you know? It comes, it comes. You take it the way it comes. I don't know."
Higgins is often compared to Elmore Leonard, and so it's only fitting that Leonard wrote the introduction to this edition, which he ends with the statement: "During the past twenty years, his name and mine have appeared together in the press - often in the same sentence - some 178 times. I'm honored."
He should be. MOVIE NOTE: So turns out the 1973 Robert Mitchum film (which came out only three years after publication) was available on Kanopy, and so I watched that within hours of finishing the book. Despite it's 100% on Rotten Tomatoes - the last of a full six Mitchum movies to do so! - and virtually all of the dialogue being lifted straight from the book, the whole thing was slow and dated and also pretty damn confusing (or it would've been if I hadn't just read the book). But most disappointing was that they totally changed the ending as far as who was really screwing who. And so while this early genre movie may have had a big influence on heist films to follow, nearly half a century later I'd say you should feel free to give it a miss.
Amazingly, however, Coyle was Higgins' only book filmed during his lifetime, with the only other story turned into a movie being Brad Pitt's excellent 2012 "Killing Them Softly," which was based on Higgins' Cogan's Trade - and filmed a full 39 years after publication! While those are the only two Higgins' I've read so far, if the rest are as good as these two then Hollywood definitely needs to rediscover this guy, and fast....more
Coetzee wisely creates a fictional land in which to set his brief morality tale, because in reality this could be so many places. North Africa; South Coetzee wisely creates a fictional land in which to set his brief morality tale, because in reality this could be so many places. North Africa; South Africa; South America. The Chinese in Tibet. The British in TIbet; the British in Chitral; the British in Afghanistan; the Russians in Afghanistan; the Americans in Afghanistan. The American West. The Australian Outback.
Anywhere, really, where Empire meets "Barbarian."
As this is capital "L" Literature, Coetzee doesn't see the need to wrap up his story with any true ending, so for me at least 1 star off right there - I do like my resolution. But otherwise, I'm glad I stumbled on this book, which I only discovered through a trailer for the 2019 film version starring Mark Rylance, Johnny Depp and Robert Pattinson, (I'm also glad to see the world is still making such movies alongside the endless superhero blockbusters). Then found the movie available free on Kanopy (at least through our library), and it was really quite good - fairly slow-moving, but stunningly filmed, and with just one additional 10-second scene at the very end which provided (IMHO) a nicer - if still unresolved - ending to the whole thing.
[image]
Meanwhile, it turns out Philip Glass wrote a 2005 opera based on the book, which I had also never heard of...so looks like I really need to keep up more on all this culture stuff......more
Recently saw the new Harrison Ford movie version and realized I never knew this story other than its title. And after watching the movie, I also realiRecently saw the new Harrison Ford movie version and realized I never knew this story other than its title. And after watching the movie, I also realized I still probably didn't know the original story all that well, so decided to read the book. And yup, WAY different from the movie, although I in fact enjoyed both.
The movie is a cute, Disney-fied tale that is great to watch with the kids, but the book is a much more "grown-up" story with realistic violence (both human and animal) set in an unforgivingly harsh natural environment. The film version also includes more of a standard "three-act" plot, because the book frankly doesn't have much of one - it just tells the story of a dog, albeit a great story about a great dog.
Don't know if I'll read any more London - as White Fang is a lot longer and sounds like more of the same (although I know it's not), and The Sea Wolf isn 't about German submarines as I originally thought, since they hadn't been invented yet - but this was really good, if somewhat showing its age. That said, I did kind of like London's overall style, which may also have been a sign of its time - very little "scene setting;" other than Buck himself, he doesn't waste a lot of time physically describing his characters of even setting the stage in Alaska - he figures you'll either figure it out or it's not necessary. Lots of lines like "they sledded up the Yukon, swung left into the Stewart River, passed the Mayo and the McQuestion, and held on until the Stewart itself became a streamlet..." Don't know where/what any of those are? Doesn't matter - but certainly gives you the proper feel.
OLD FART NOTE: It kills me that this is frequently listed as a YA or even children's book - back then was probably called a "boy's story." I've noted before (and probably will again, because I'm getting old and repetitive), kids "back in my day" seemed to have a much higher reading level than those of today, both with better vocabularies and wider interests....more
Impossible to give this less that 5 stars for being such a classic and so far ahead of its time. But also hard to give it more than 3 for writing stylImpossible to give this less that 5 stars for being such a classic and so far ahead of its time. But also hard to give it more than 3 for writing style - "I was still traveling with prodigious velocity" - and how well it has (or more correctly, hasn't) held up. So a strong 4 overall.
I know I've read this before, although no idea when - maybe high school? Anyway, centuries ago. Surprised at how short it is - almost a novella - and didn't remember how much post-Darwinian social science monologuing there was. But still, a fairly crisp story, and one worthy of a better film adaptation than either the good-but-now-outdated 1960 version with Rod Taylor, or the disappointing 2002 redo with Guy Pierce....more
It is a strange fact, and fully unintentional, that I have never read any of Arthur Conan Doyle's "Sherlock Holmes" books. I've read others by Doyle -It is a strange fact, and fully unintentional, that I have never read any of Arthur Conan Doyle's "Sherlock Holmes" books. I've read others by Doyle - The Lost World, which I greatly enjoyed with its galumphing Allosaurs that hopped around like kangaroos and killed their prey by falling forward and squashing them; and the excruciating (at least at the time) The White Company, which I was forced to read in middle school. And I've also read other Sherlock stories, including the Lovecraftian Sherlock Holmes and the Shadwell Shadows and the more traditional The House of Silk. But for some reason, "Doyle" and "Sherlock" never came together until just now.
There's certainly nothing more to add about Scarlet that hasn't been said before, and so I won't try. I will note that I was totally surprised that the middle third (?) of the book is a long diversion into a story about Mormon cowboys - I just never knew that before. Combined with Charles Leerhsen's new biography of Butch Cassidy (which I am currently reading, and which deals with the early Mormon church in Utah), and Larry McMurtry's Oh What a Slaughter (read earlier, and which recounts in horrific detail the infamous Mountain Meadows Massacre of 1857), it turns out that prior to the current depiction of Mormons as friendly, good-natured and peace-loving (if slightly delusional - just google "Mormons" and "South Park") Mitt Romney-type pacifists, 150 years ago they were indeed a bunch of blood-thirsty, unforgiving sons-of-bitches that could have given the Mafia a run for their money, (one man's opinion of course, and apologies in advance to any LDS friends on Goodreads).
May well read more of Doyles' work in future, but no rush. In the meantime, however, I am interested in going back and rewatching Season One of BBC's Benedict Cumberbatch-starring "Sherlock." Cumberbatch is great - but Martin Freeman can do absolutely no wrong!...more
Can't believe I never read this before, because I am (or at least thought I was) so familiar with the story. I mean, who isn't? One literally can't noCan't believe I never read this before, because I am (or at least thought I was) so familiar with the story. I mean, who isn't? One literally can't not know this story, at least it's basic structure; and along the way I've also thoroughly enjoyed the Spielberg/Cruise update a few years back as well as the excellent Jeff Wayne musical version released way back in...wow, 1978?
So okay...not really a 5-star book, but certainly a 5-star experience in terms of enjoyment, especially the audio version with Sean Barrett's outstanding, Burton-esque narration. And despite my familiarity with the story, there were still a few surprises along the way. For one thing, several critical chapters about the panicked exodus from London and the classic battle against the ironclad Thunderchild are told not from the narrator's POV, but from that of his brother - a minor point, but one that adds to the story's overall believability by reducing what would otherwise be the narrator's Zelig-like omnipresence.
Wells' writing holds up surprisingly well for being 120 years old - or at least when someone reads it aloud. His description about the crowds fleeing London are truly horrific; and sadly, humanity would probably react just the same way today.
My GF friend David has a nice review of the book here: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show..., in which he does a good job comparing Wells' fictional reaction to the Martians' arrival to how the natives in Africa or America must have felt when the British first "invaded" their shores - I have to confess I was so engrossed in the story (at least that's my excuse) that I totally missed that obvious analogy until he pointed it out.
Still, a little old-timey writing goes a long way, so despite having one of those Barnes & Noble "seven H.G. Wells stories in one volume" books, I'm probably good for a while. However, I recently ordered the double-CD "War of the Worlds - The New Generation" (only $5 new at Amazon), which is a 2012 "reimagining" of Jeff Wayne's original concept album; and I look forward to cranking it up during my morning commute - "ULL-laa" indeed!...more
Okay, so I know I'm gonna piss off a lot of people here, but bear with me...
I never read the Oz books as a child, so have none of the nostalgic foundaOkay, so I know I'm gonna piss off a lot of people here, but bear with me...
I never read the Oz books as a child, so have none of the nostalgic foundation a lot of my GR friends do. So other than the infamous MGM movie, my first exposure was just a month or two ago with the thoroughly delightful Eric Shanower/Skottie Young MARVEL graphic updates, (of which I have already bought a set to share with my someday-grandchildren). So THAT is where I am completely coming from here.
So...having finished the MARVEL series, I decided to read one of the original stories just for comparison, and picked up Ozma because that and The Wonderful Wizard were my favorites. And I have to say that - again, coming with no previous history here - IMHO they have not aged well, at least in the original. Yes, they are charming and imaginative inventions, so definitely deserving of a good remake. But Baum's writing style is extremely dated, and Neill's illustrations in many cases frankly creeped me out. The Wheelers are scary in a purely WTF way, as is the picture of the rock wall full of Nomes. Ozma herself looks like a Maxfield Parrish outtake, and I'm pretty sure Dorothy stepped right out of "The Shining."
So in the end, I just came away with an even greater respect for the Shanower/Young redos. I hadn't realized when I first read them, but the dialogue is all lifted virtually straight from the book, although MARVEL thankfully spares us Baum's verbal tics, where Dorothy sounds like a real hick with her endless use of "immed'i'tly" and "pss'bly" and "tel'phones," and Tiktok wears out his welcome after just one page of hy-phen-a-ting e-ve-ry frick-in ut-ter-rance, be-cause he is a mech-an-i-cal man...WE GET IT.
So looks like I'm really done with Oz this time - until I pick up and look through one of the MARVEL books again...Young's drawings REALLY are a joy....more
RE-READ UPDATE: Yup, still brilliant. I have to say that these beautifully illustrated retellings are my favorite MARVEL books ever. Creator Frank BauRE-READ UPDATE: Yup, still brilliant. I have to say that these beautifully illustrated retellings are my favorite MARVEL books ever. Creator Frank Baum's writing style may not have aged particularly well, but there's no faulting his imagination. Even "throwaways" here that have nothing to do with the real story - like the Wheelers and the lunch-box/dinner-pail trees - are fully realized; while main characters like the Nome King and Princess Langwidere are as delightful today as they were over a century ago. Plus, who else would make his main hero - saving the day at least twice - be a character called Bill the Chicken? And of course, the pairing of Dorothy and Ozma makes one of the greatest female teams since Xena and Gabrielle. (That said, what's the point of Tik-Tok? He seems to really contribute nothing to the overall story, other than just standing in the background and "talk-ing in his su-per an-noy-ing voice.")
As always, Skottie Young's illustrations steal the show - that man cannot draw a wrong line, as seen both here and in his own perverse "I Hate Fairyland," which is basically a "Dark Brandon" take on the whole Baum world. I can't wait to share these "Oz" books with my grandson, (although "Fairyland" will have to wait a good while longer!).
ORIGINAL REVIEW: Another delightful - and beautiful - entry in the series, and as with the previous book a story I was completely unfamiliar with. How have these not been filmed? And why do they instead keep making inferior movies like "The Wiz," James Franco's lame "Oz the Great and Powerful," TV's interesting update "Tin Man," and Disney's 1985 "Return to Oz," (which was a loose and apparently terrible mash-up of Ozma and the previous Marvelous Land of Oz)? *
Now that folks are seriously adapting things like Lord of the Rings, Game of Thrones, The Expanse and the I-really-hope-they-don't-screw-it-up His Dark Materials, it's about time HBO or Netflix got the rights to Oz and did a decent series that combined all the stories using the techniques and talents of modern Hollywood. How do we make that happen?? _________________________________
* Not to mention the whole "Wicked" thing......more
RE-READ UPDATE: Just a delightful reimagining of a fun story - that ends with one of the biggest surprise reveals in children's literature! Almost makRE-READ UPDATE: Just a delightful reimagining of a fun story - that ends with one of the biggest surprise reveals in children's literature! Almost makes me want to go read the Baum original...almost.
Shanower does a good job reducing-but-not-changing Baum's original text to create a coherent story in graphic novel form. But the real heroes are Young and his brilliant colorist Beaulieu. Am including a couple pages here to give you a feel - but you can actually read the entire series free online beginning here: https://readallcomics.com/the-wonderf...
[image] [image] [image]
ORIGINAL REVIEW: Absolutely no clue what this book would be about, which is strange considering what a pervasive part of modern culture the original Oz story is. Lot of fun and fantastical characters here - Tip, Mombi, Jack Pumpkinhead, the Saw-Horse, the Woggle-Bug, the Gump, and the last-pages introduction of Ozma - plus some welcome expanded roles for Scarecrow, Tin Man (aka Nick Chopper in this book), Glinda and the Queen of the Field Mice.
On the downside, Baum's vision of the "silly," all-female army that takes over Oz is laughably un-PC 115 years on...but it's also hard to hold someone's views up to today's standards after more than a century, and as Shanower notes in his introduction, Baum was the son-in-law of prominent suffragette and women's rights leader Matilda Joslyn Gage, and a strong supporter of her cause. So I guess...just different times, man.
But once again, the real stand-out here is Young's artwork and Beaulieu's coloring. This book is much brighter than the first, which I found a little gray and dark - again, after reading the whole story, it was just fun to go through again and study the drawings, as there's just so much to find there....more
UPDATE: Wanted to slowly reread - i.e., bask in - this outstanding series of books, which IMHO (and with only the lightest touch of hyperbole) are notUPDATE: Wanted to slowly reread - i.e., bask in - this outstanding series of books, which IMHO (and with only the lightest touch of hyperbole) are not only the best thing MARVEL has ever put out, but also the most charming interpretation of Baum's original books and characters EVER. Sumptious artwork throughout - and when you think that with an average of six panels per page, Skottie Young had to produce over 1,000 unique drawings for just this one book; each one of which I can happily study for far more time than I ever spent looking at the Mona Lisa, (which frankly isn't much larger than this book).
[image]
ORIGINAL REVIEW: After reading the I Hate Fairyland series, I'm on a bit of a Skottie Young jag, and this was a wonderful follow-up to those beautiful but much darker volumes. Another joint production of Young and colorist Jean-Francois Beaulieu, this is considerably different in artistic style and tone from Fairyland, but no less gorgeous.
Having seen that damn movie every Thanksgiving for about a dozen years as a child, I thought I'd breeze through this first story pretty quickly before reading the other "Oz" stories in this series, all of which I was totally unfamiliar with. But turns out that as with so many film adaptations (and I'm thinking of you, Disney), the movie version merely skims the surface of a much deeper tale. This retelling, however, is much more faithful to the original novel, and so introduced me to a large cast of previously unknown characters such as the Winkies and the Quadlings; the China Princess and Mr. Joker; the Hammer-Heads; the Queen of the Field Mice; the Kalidahs...my goodness, there were a lot.
I'm not sure if our library has all the books in this 6-book series, but I'll certainly take whatever they have. This is a beautiful and relatively quick way to get caught on this classic literary world....more
One of the earlier and more realistic takes on the end of the world, On The Beach presents a stark and fairly realistic take on a post-nuclear world wOne of the earlier and more realistic takes on the end of the world, On The Beach presents a stark and fairly realistic take on a post-nuclear world waiting to die.
Even though Australia plays no role in Shute's fictional war that destroyed all of the northern hemisphere, it's just as screwed as clouds of nuclear radiation make their inexorable way south. The book achieves its emotional and dramatic largely because Shute avoided any emotion or drama in his style, much like James Michener's Korean War classic Bridges at Toko-Ri, (published just four years earlier). The story is told in a calm, factual narrative style, which somehow only heightens the sense of impending doom.
That said, there is way too much "people trying to get on with their daily lives" here. The book covers endless dinners and parties and fishing trips and other activities as the remaining (can't really call them "surviving") Australian try to ignore - if not postpone - the inevitable, (although with the amount of casual smoking and drinking here, I'm surprised everyone hadn't already killed themselves long before the war took place). Also on the "kind of annoying" side of the scale are a particularly sloggy 12-page stretch about a largely irrelevant car race, and an endless "will-they-won't-they" romance between the American sub commander and the Aussie "bad little good girl" bounces randomly back and forth between being touching, annoying and downright stupid - maybe it worked in the late 50's, but it definitely did not age well, (although the relationship was apparently a lot steamier in the 1959 film version).*
That said, there are definite signs of greatest here. The book's best - and bleakest - scenes remain the two trips by the sole surviving American submarine to search for any signs of life along Australia's northeast and America's west coasts, (unspoiled beachfront scenery and quaint coastal towns - just no signs of life); and the emotional final chapter where the various protagonists checking out one-by-one, (which is no spoiler - you knew this was coming from page one).
Overall, I'd say a 3.5-star read, but I'm rounding up for its continuing - indeed, increasing - timeliness.
I'm on a business trip, and the books I brought are Shovel Ready, about a post-dirty bombed New York City; this one; and Neal Shusterman's Dry, about a near-future, drought-plagued Southern California - so I hit a depressing post-apocalypse trifecta here. Let's hope I don't kill myself before I get home... *BTW, if like me, you read this looking for the scene where Burt Lancaster and Deborah Kerr's characters roll around smooching in the surf, you've come to the wrong place, literally - turns out that was From Here to Eternity, a 1951 WWII story that had NOTHING to do with a nuclear holocaust. Who knew? (Not me, obviously...) ...more
Whew! Finally finished rereading all the Alistair MacLean books that I enjoyed so much as a teen, beginning with 1957's outstanding HMS Ulysses and ruWhew! Finally finished rereading all the Alistair MacLean books that I enjoyed so much as a teen, beginning with 1957's outstanding HMS Ulysses and running through 1968's Force 10 From Navarone, (after which it's pretty much universally acknowledged that the quality of his books took a pretty steep dive).
Guns of Navarone is consistently and deservedly listed among MacLean's top 3-4. And yes, it features some of the ultimately predictable plot twists he loved to sprinkle in his stories - "the good guy was really a bad guy pretending to be good, but then he really WAS a good guy!" - but remember, this was only his second book (the first being a straight-up combat story), and so was still pretty original for its time.
Like a lot of older (and usually British) authors, I have to read with a dictionary - or at least Google - close at hand. In this case I had to turn for help on the following:
"Three days to go, engine u.s., and a first-class bloody mess..." - took a LONG time to find an explanation here on a WWII-era list of naval abbreviations; "u.s." or "u/s" stood for "unserviceable."
"Now he squeezed the trigger four times, for he wanted to mak' siccar..." - early etymology of "massacre," perhaps? Nope; turns out it's an obscure Scottish term literally meaning "to make sure," relevant here as the character shooting was Scottish (like MacLean himself).
Along with Ulysses, Navarone was also one of MacLean's few books to have no female characters - generally a plus in his case as he was NOT a strong writer of female roles. That was changed (along with a lot of other things) in the film version, where the characters of Louki and Panayis were changed to Andrea's sister and a friend. (Also in the movie, the very American character of Dusty Miller was unfortunately played by the very British David Niven - never a good casting choice.)
There's still a lot of unread MacLean out there - including his last book of the 60's, Puppet on a Chain, which I may or may not have read before. But for now at least, I'll say farewell on a particularly high note.
INTERESTING OBSERVATION: I'd say the majority of "likes" or comments on my MacLean reviews come from GR friends in South or Southeast Asia, where apparently he remains better known and appreciated than he is here in the U.S. - so glad to see he is still getting the respect he deserves in SOME parts of the world!...more
Huh. Surprisingly good, although maybe because of the movie and my only other experience with Burroughs, (Land That Time Forgot and Out of Time's AbysHuh. Surprisingly good, although maybe because of the movie and my only other experience with Burroughs, (Land That Time Forgot and Out of Time's Abyss), I was going in with low expectations. But I really enjoyed this, to the point that I went out and bought one of those bargain Barnes & Noble "five books in one" compilations so I can (at some point) find out what happens next.
The language is what it is - it's still a book written over a hundred years ago. But where his imagination ran away with him in the totally implausible Abyss, here it lends itself to some very creative world building. This was published just 35 years after Schiaparelli's discovery of Mars' supposed "canals," and so was one of a spate of similar stories imaging what life on the Red Planet might be like, (you can see a list here; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_in...), a genre that extended well into the 1950's. That said, unlike, say, Wells' War of the Worlds (written six years before Princess) or Bradbury's The Martian Chronicles, this falls firmly on the side of fantasy rather than science fiction, since there is zero attempt at any scientific accuracy here - Burroughs doesn't even try to explain how Carter gets to Mars and back (at least not in this first book); he just wakes up there.
Still, much of what passes for "science fiction" today owes a heavy debt to Burroughs' Martian saga. It can be easily argued that without Barsoom there would be no "Star Wars" (both Jabba the Hutt's barge and Leia's gold bikini are direct ripoffs, as is the Geonosis arena battle in "Attack of the Clones"); no "Flash Gordon;" no "Avatar," (and Burroughs does a far more subtle job of basing his green Tharks on Native Americans than James Cameron did with his blue Na'vi).
Anyway - very enjoyable and a good narration...so now time to rewatch the Disney movie and see if it's any better now that I know the source material!...more
Loading...
