The Blog of Eternal Stench

Panic

2012-02-01T11:56:00.001-05:00

I think maybe I'm having some kind of random-point-in-life crisis. It's not particularly pleasant.

Time

2012-01-31T15:40:00.005-05:00

It is truly amazing to me, what a difference getting up an hour later and having ample time to go for a run, shower, have breakfast, and clean up makes in terms of one's feelings throughout the day.

I had a Diet Coke today, which I try not to do often, but I really enjoyed it, so I think it was a good choice.

Trying to start things slowly and build. Worked with the run this morning. Not sure about application to other things.

Things I liked about today (besides the altered schedule): Mailed registration for the first 5k of the year. I tried to find one in January but apparently people don't like running this month? Also, in the middle of my own conversation, I stopped, looked over at the people having lunch at the next table (work break room, not random strangers, though it might not make a difference) and said "I'm sorry. Did you just say Fassbender? I heard you say Fassbender. Hi!" Proceeded to switch tables to engage in conversation about said Fassbender. Admitting you have a problem is the first step ...

PS - I am doing Cannonball Read again this year, although only 26 books this time. I managed to finish The Pickwick Papers before January ended, but I haven't found the time to write it up yet.

Stuff, 2012

2012-01-30T14:33:00.005-05:00

I should blog more. Lately I have been low on motivation for any kind of blogging, though. 2012 so far has been a little bit of a rough transition. Very disheartened and unbalanced by my commute these days, and I think it's starting to bleed over into everything else. Anyway, I was looking at someone else's blog and she inspired me a little bit. So maybe I'll get over here and talk some more. I know it's almost February, but I still feel like I'm struggling to get my feet under me. Ugh.

Anyway, today has mostly successes in the appropriate column, although I didn't get up and run, which as a "fail" tends to color the rest of the day. Not sleeping well and my back feeling a little funky is my excuse.

Things I liked about today: hearing "Round Here" on the radio (nostalgia!); having a moderate-to-conservative friend cop to the fact that there's a strong likelihood she'll vote for Obama in November; determining that plain yogurt definitely adds to some leftovers that have been heretofore disappointing.

Run!

2011-10-07T09:19:00.002-04:00

Wow. I haven't actually posted in a really long time. Life is busy, but pretty decent. Not to be terribly obvious, but life changes a lot when there's suddenly a very small person who is wholly dependent upon you. And of course, because I never do things the easy way, I've decided to make myself even more busy by taking up a few hobbies; one old, one new. I've gone back to singing in a choir (that's the old) and, the point of this particular post, I've taken up running.

I really love to run. I loved it when I was a kid. I wasn't really much for actual athletic effort, though, until I started fencing at the end of high school. For a long time, that was enough to keep me in decent shape, but as I got older, I needed more exercise to feel my best. Off and on I would go out and trot around, but stuff hurt, and I just didn't commit myself. Fast forward to a few years ago, when I started having a lot of trouble with my hip. It took me a couple of orthopedists to figure out that I had arthritis caused by dysplasia. But I also took away something important from the last guy I saw. We were talking about running, and the common excuse from a lot of people about how it's bad for your knees. He said "You know, it's not the running that's bad, actually. It's when you run for a long time, and then stop, and then start again." Essentially, he made me realize that stuff hurts in the beginning, but it ought to stop hurting as you go on, since it's all getting stronger.

Fast forward again, though, to early this summer. I have had a baby, and I am struggling, a bit, to lose the weight. I've never actively tried to "lose weight" before ... I always just exercised and felt good with where I was. Feeling at the end of my rope, and having had a great conversation w/some friends who are runners while on vacation, I made a decision: it was time to "become a runner."

I came home from vacation at the beginning of June, and decided that my plan, to start out with, was that I would run 2 miles three times a week. In July I would up it to 2.5, in August 3.0, and so on, and just see where it took me. I decided if it went well, I would look for a 5k (3.2ish miles) in September.

It's now October. I get up at 5 am at least three days a week (and I'm gunning for 4) and run 2.25 miles, which is a convenient loop near my house that includes one painful and one slightly painful hill. On Saturdays, I'm now trying to go for a "long run," which for this month is the originally planned 4 miles. Basically, there's not enough time in my regular day for anything much past 3 miles.

I'm having a great time. Getting up really early kind of sucks, but there's the awesome feeling of having already exercised when you "officially" start your day. Plus when I get home at night I'm not trying to juggle spending time w/baby AND getting dinner AND cleaning up afterward AND THEN trying to decide if there's still enough time to go out for a run. Oddly enough (not really), I feel more tired and low-energy on days when I don't run. I'm actually a few pounds below pre-baby weight now, looking for a few more. And yes, I did run my first 5K at the end of September.

I ran the "Hoof it for Haiti" event in Rocky Hill, CT. I looked for a cause that would be more personal, but this particular event was about 15 minutes away from home, so that was the deciding factor. Despite the threat of rain, my husband and daughter came with and cheered me on. My goal, officially, was just to run it and finish. Unofficially, though, I had this arbitrary notion of finishing it in under 30 minutes. I hadn't done any sort of speed training, or any "training" at all besides just going out and running, but I just thought 30 minutes sounded like a pretty good time. My only strategy was to run at my own pace for the first mile or half-mile, and then pick and choose people to see if I could pass them.

People seemed very cliqueish at the starting line, but since I was nervous, I didn't really mind much. As is universally advised, I moved to the back of the pack. I saw a tall guy who might as well have been wearing a sign that said "SERIOUS RUNNER" staying loose way behind everyone else before the start, and I thought "Ok, Red Shirt Guy's going to win." He just had that look. I tried to stay calm and relaxed, and to remind myself that I had been running 3.5 miles for the previous month, so this would be no problem.

And we're off. The first bit was a small downhill, and I made a crack to the lady next to me that it was designed that way to make us feel better. After that, I got into my usual pace and tried to treat it like just another Saturday run. The first half was through a residential area, and it was fun to see people coming out of their houses to watch all the crazy runners go by. I was pleased to note that at the first uphill stretch, I didn't really have to slow down much, and that even with my moderate, comfortable pace I was passing plenty of people, including a few that I thought looked like more serious contenders.

I think I may have sped up a little bit when I passed the first mile marker, but I tried to calm that down a bit. We passed back across the starting line and I waved at my fans and had some lady offer me encouragement by telling me I had a good pace. On we go. I passed fewer people the further on I went and was sort of bummed when I saw people walking who would then start running again a few minutes later. It seemed sort of like cheating to me. A little less than halfway through I started focusing on a woman a ways in front of me, who seemed to be moving at a decent speed. Passing her became my goal, but she stayed well ahead of me until about 2.5 miles. After I passed her I felt like it was time to go for a more full-on run, even though I was definitely starting to feel it. Managed to successfully snag some water from a Boy Scout on my way past; that felt like an accomplishment. As I moved back up a small rise and started to pass a few more people, it got exciting. I was sucking wind but I was almost through! I came around a curve and could see the finish line and my husband cheering, and then I saw the big digital clock at the finish. It said 29:32, or something close to that. I WAS GOING TO DO IT. I've long been a believer in the idea of "always saving something for the end," and this was the perfect time to find that reserve and go for it.

When I passed the clock, it said 29:42, although the official results would add 10 seconds to that for whatever reason. Either way, it was under 30 minutes, so that's a win in my book. I grabbed the proffered bottle of water at the finish and walked for a bit before turning back to catch up with the family. I felt AWESOME, if rather tired. Walked around some (we were trying to get the young lady to go to sleep in her stroller), wandered over and got some food, kind of wasn't sure what to do. I learned from my husband that Red Shirt Guy came in second. He finished about 20 seconds behind some teenager who'd been in the lead the whole way. Didn't look too bummed about it, though. Hung out for a while before wandering over to check the official times, and learned that I'd finished in the top half. Also a good feeling when all I'd really intended to do was get out there and do the thing.

Overall, it was fun. I was a little disappointed that I felt as tired as I did, but I chalk that up to probably keeping a bit of a faster pace than I usually do, and speeding up a fair amount toward the end. I felt a little bit of a let-down at having completed the goal, and of just no longer being able to say "Hey, I'm going to run my first ever 5K next weekend," but later in the day I started thinking about the next one, so I guess that means I'm hooked, huh?

Right now I'm trying to up the pace a little bit to see if I can finish the next one stronger. Planning on one in Middletown at the end of this month, and am tentatively thinking I'll do a Turkey Trot when we're down South for Thanksgiving. Bigger races and distances are a thought for the future (Hartford Half-Marathon in a year?), but for now I'm enjoying myself and not really looking to push things that much. I feel strong and healthy and like I'm accomplishing something, and that's a pretty awesome feeling. I'll let you know how 5K Number Two goes. I've got a PR to beat, now.

Book reviews

2011-06-21T10:26:00.017-04:00

Der. I've gotten lazy about reposting reviews here. I am still going along, though, so I'll just post links here, and if you're interested, click away!

#20, Atonement, Ian McEwan.
#21, The Ghost of Blackwood Hall, Carolyn Keene. (Nancy Drew)
#22, Sunshine, Robin McKinley.
#23, The Fire, Katherine Neville.
#24, The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian, Sherman Alexie.
#25, Russian Winter, Daphne Kalotay.
#26, Spoiled, Heather Cocks & Jessica Morgan.
#27, A Good Year, Peter Mayle.
#28, Gods Behaving Badly, Marie Phillips.
#29, Born to Run ... , Christopher McDougall.
#30, Wicked, Gregory Maguire.
#31, The Invention of Hugo Cabret, Brian Selznick.
#32, The Historian, Elizabeth Kostova.
#33, The Girl with the Pearl Earring, Tracy Chevalier.
#34, Run Like a Mother, Dimity McDowell and Sarah Bowen Shea.
#35, Shakespeare's Wife, Germaine Greer.
#36, Breadcrumbs, Anne Ursu.
#37, The Woman in Black, Susan Hill.
#38, The Time Machine, H.G. Wells.
#39, The Lady in the Tower: The Fall of Anne Boleyn, Alison Weir.
#40, Matilda, Roald Dahl.
#41, Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children, Ransom Riggs.
#42-52, Our favorite board books.

Whee.

CBR Book 19: Mansfield Park

2011-05-05T10:00:00.000-04:00

Mansfield Park, by Jane Austen

Ok, so this is a re-read. I took a Jane Austen course in college, in which we read all six of her novels, and this was one of my least favorite. Since I took that course about six years ago, and at the urging of a friend who loves it, I decided to give it another try.

Mansfield Park tells the story of Fanny Price, a poor girl who is sent off to live with wealthy relations. She is brought up at Mansfield Park by her Uncle and Aunt Bertram, and her aunt Mrs. Norris, alongside her cousins Tom, Edmund, Maria, and Julia. As they all enter adulthood, their personalities and manners all prove to be the making (or unmaking) of them, especially when they make new friends in brother and sister Henry and Mary Crawford. Maria Bertram marries Mr. Rushworth even while carrying on a dangerous flirtation with Mr. Crawford, Julia chafes at being the younger sister, Tom indulges in wild behavior, and Edmund struggles between his plans to go into the clergy, and his wish to marry the worldly and wealthy Miss Crawford. Fanny, meanwhile, is audience to all these goings-on, until Mr. Crawford turns his attentions to her, and she must fend off his advances while keeping her own heart a secret. In the end, everyone learns a lesson and/or gets their comeuppance, and it all concludes quite tidily indeed.

When I brought Mansfield Park home from the library, my husband asked me, "Why isn't this one as well known as some of the others?" and my response was "Because it's boring." Having read it a second time, that's not entirely fair, although it's a reasonably accurate assessment of why fewer people have probably read this one than, say, Pride & Prejudice. If all of Austen's novels highlight the social behaviors and activities of the time, Mansfield Park focuses on them primarily. It's really the most moralizing of them all. When her uncle agrees to take her in, it is his intention to not accentuate the social differences between Fanny and her cousins, but this does not come to pass. The entire novel is essentially a narrative of how Fanny's behavior is far superior to that of all her cousins (save Edmund, who nevertheless has his own stumbling-blocks), and the implication is that the difference is due to the inherent nature of the difference in their social status. Fanny is brought up in wealth and comfort, but she is always reminded to feel grateful for what she has been given, whereas her cousins are, in essence, spoiled, and take everything for granted. As a poor girl with very little expectations for her future, it is much more incumbent upon Fanny to behave in the most proper manner possible. In contrast, her cousins can expect to continue to live in style regardless of their behavior ... to a point, as we eventually learn.

The language and the writing here are, of course, gorgeous. It's very enjoyable to read, even if it is a litany of manners. The biggest problem for me is that really, all of the characters, well-behaved or not, aren't particularly likeable. Fanny herself is a good character; a fairly typical Austen heroine. She has a bit more spine than might be otherwise expected, but so much of her story is internal that she's still not that interesting. Edmund, the other "good" character, is actually kind of insufferable. He preaches to Fanny throughout, "leading her" as it were, but when he gets distracted by a pretty girl, a lot of his own behavior falls by the wayside, yet Fanny still finds him to be an ideal specimen. The Bertram sisters are pretty annoying, and the Crawfords are interesting in their moral difference, but are sort of summarily dismissed when their behavior is finally proved to be undesirable to everyone who hadn't seen it before.

I think I can now say that I don't dislike Mansfield Park so much as I simply don't find it as enjoyable as the other novels. The story is a good one, but the characters are a little more allegorical (for lack of a better word) than usual, and the proselytizing just overpowers the narrative to too high a degree. It doesn't move in my overall hierarchy of Austen's work, but I am willing to give it more credit now for its good points. If you're looking to read some Austen, though, I don't recommend starting here. Try Emma or P&P, and then if you like those, keep going.

CBR Book 18: Territory

2011-04-22T11:14:00.000-04:00

Territory, by Emma Bull

Regardless of what I say about this book, the following sentence will either sell you or not. Ready? Here goes. Territory by Emma Bull is a fantasy novel, set in the wild West. No, seriously. It's set in Tombstone. The characters include Doc Holliday and his woman, most of the Earp clan, and pretty much everyone else who was involved in the shootout at the O.K. Corral. And guess what? Some of them are sorcerers.

Jesse Fox (the main characters are fictional) arrives in Tombstone in the midst of turmoil. There's been an attempted robbery of a stagecoach and consequent murder of two men, and one of the escaping would-be bandits has stolen his horse. He shoots the guy, who eventually dies, and retrieves his horse, but gets caught up in the subsequent mess before he can leave continue on his way.Turns out a friend of his, Chow Lung, a Chinese magician, is in town, and he wants Jesse to use his latent-but-denied powers to set things straight in Tombstone. Somebody's been using magic to control events (and people's lives), and Jesse and Lung have to figure out who. It's not really giving much away to say that the ultimate culprit is pretty obvious. What's interesting is that there are various other individuals in town who have the power but are unaware of it, or how to use it. One such is Mildred Benjamin, an attractive widow who works as a typesetter for The Nugget by day and as a writer of dime serial novels by night. She and Jesse strike up an uneasy friendship, and she uses her developing skills as a reporter to unravel the complex thread of events and murders that surround the attempted stagecoach robbery. The ultimate "showdown" is not one of guns, but one of power. Lines are drawn, and the stage is set, to some degree, for the events of the famous shootout.

The biggest problem with Territory comes from the author's attempts to make the thing a sort of mystery. For the first third of the novel, the reader is picking through information and learning along with the characters, and it's all very confusing. The second third irons itself out a bit and focuses on other things, so it's more comfortable, and then the final third gets all convoluted again. I hesitate to say that there are too many threads; I think it's more an issue of how those threads are handled. For instance: the plot is moving along, and we are satisfied with the identity of the main perpetrator of various deeds. Then, suddenly, for reasons that are never made entirely clear, we are thrown the curveball of learning that someone else who has been merely peripheral up to this point has these magical powers as well, and may actually have been responsible for one previous deed in particular. I'm not sure why Ms. Bull got so enthusiastic about making every other person in Tombstone a magician, but I didn't personally feel that it was necessary. It's hard for me to admit that the plot of a novel is too convoluted: one of my favorite books is The Count of Monte Christo, which is sort of famously tangled, and that's part of what I love about it. But here, for whatever reason, it just wasn't working for me.

What was working, and what I always enjoy about magic in novels, is the way in which an individual author chooses to manifest the magic. Is it related to light, animals, water, will, or what? In this case, it's sort of earth magic. Tombstone is a silver mining town, and so the "magicians" drawn there are brought, whether or not they know it, by the energies in the earth itself. The earth is used for important "spells," and the characters feel a strong connection to the land. It's not the most original manifestation, but it worked well within the framework of this story.

So yeah. Cowboys plus magic plus mystery. A little bit of a mess plot-wise, reasonably entertaining character-wise, and actually really interesting in terms of the use of the historical elements present. I would suggest that if you don't know much about Tombstone, Holliday, Earp, and the famous shootout (like me), you might want to hit up Wikipedia before reading Territory. Or watch Tombstone, or something. Speaking of which, I need to go put that on my Netflix queue. Pardon me.

CBR Book 17: Furious Love

2011-04-14T09:41:00.001-04:00

Furious Love, by Sam Kashner & Nancy Schoenberger

In a book full of sad tales, the saddest comes from the acknowledgements section at the end. The writers, on telling a recently graduated theater major that they planned on writing a book about the world-famous Taylor-Burton relationship, received this response: "Oh, wow. I never know that Elizabeth Taylor and Tim Burton were married!" After being one-half of the most famous couple in the world, not to mention an acting giant, it's too bad that Richard Burton is somewhat forgotten in the realm of celebrity these days. I am forced to admit that I have not, as yet, even seen a movie in which Mr. Burton appears. I promise you that there are at least 5 currently on my Netflix queue, though, and I bumped a couple up after reading this fascinating story of Hollywood's royal couple.

Furious Love serves as sort of a dual biography, giving us a presumably abbreviated look at the lives of Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton before and after tumultuous relationship, as well as the full account of their years together. Elizabeth Taylor had been a movie star from childhood, whereas Burton was the most promising of stage actors until he answered the siren call of Hollywood. She had lived a life of privilege, while he was the 12th of 13 children born to a poor Welsh miner. When they began their affair on the set of Cleopatra in 1963, they were both married to other people: Taylor to Eddie Fisher (her fourth marriage) and Burton to Sibyl, who had weathered countless affairs before. Their relationship caused a sensation; scandalizing and fascinating the world, and engendering the landscape of celebrity obsession that we see today. Throughout their affair and their subsequent marriages (the first lasting ten years, the second a matter of months) they were alternately beloved and vilified by the public. They functioned almost entirely in the public eye, allowing the world to live vicariously through their extreme decadence. They purchased fabulous jewels, paintings, yachts, planes; they ate and drank to excess; they rubbed shoulders with everyone who was anyone. Oh, and they made a whole bunch of movies, too. In the end, their life was too extreme to maintain, both in terms of their relationship, and their health. They both suffered from uncountable health problems, many brought on by alcoholism and drug abuse (mostly in Taylor's case), and Burton died in 1984 at the age of 58.

This biography encapsulates two different stories. The first is that of Taylor and Burton's film careers. The list of people they worked with and movies they made is truly incredible. More interesting is the way in which they commanded their world: at the height of their stardom, and even when their shine had faded somewhat, they were capable of asking nearly anything of the studios and getting away with it. Elizabeth Taylor usually had full veto rights over everything from costume design to screenwriters and directors. Despite being remembered for a certain amount of high drama and camp today, Taylor and Burton worked hard to bring challenging, literary pieces to the screen; often adaptations of plays written by friends like Tennessee Williams and Noel Coward, not to mention classics like Shakespeare and Marlowe. They were conversely the critics' darlings or the laughingstock of the press, but they almost always did things the way they wanted to do them. The rise and fall of their Hollywood reign is a fascinating story to follow, and will certainly swell your Netflix queue beyond all reason (if it's not there already).

Darker, and much sadder (to me) is the story of their relationship. What existed in the Taylor-Burton romance was a situation wherein two people loved each other very much, but were living in such a fantasy world of movies, parties, and riches that they were rendered incapable of dealing with reality. I often think that we, as a society, become brainwashed by the romance of media. We believe in things like meet-cutes, last-minute reconciliations in airports, and happily ever afters; and more importantly, we think that these things are all engineered by magic, rather than hard work and communication. And if the average Joe gets sucked in by all of those things, then the movie stars themselves are twice as susceptible. Taylor and Burton are a perfect example of this. They did whatever they wanted, often suffering the consequences but usually coming out ahead because they were so popular that they were guaranteed to make money for anyone they worked with or for. They lived a life of hedonism and never seemed to truly catch on that they were paying for it with their lives. Burton suffered a wide variety of health problems due to his (never acknowledged) alcoholism, but never truly got sober for more than a few months at a time. Elizabeth, and their entourage, were so busy having a good time that they never really supported his efforts. We would look with horror on a "regular" relationship in which one partner attempted to get sober while the other continued to booze it up, but this was simply par for the course where the Burtons were involved. Depicted in this book, that was their whole life. They got sucked in to the limelight, into their public personae, and they couldn't escape. It's not enough to say that they "weren't allowed" a normal life or relationship - it's more like a kind of Stockholm Syndrome, wherein they knew their life was destroying them, but they loved the poison.

This is a depressing and fascinating story of two people who only sort of existed, and of two people who weren't allowed to truly exist. "Liz and Dick," as opposed to Elizabeth and Richard, played out their every move for reporters. The situations and stories are presented so well here that in the end, instead of being envious of the fabulous life they lived, all you can really feel for them is a certain amount of pity. Sure, we'd all like to have enough money to casually drop 2 million on a massive diamond, but what price would we really pay? There are numerous references throughout to Faust (a role Burton played, naturally), and it's an apt comparison. Furious Love is a book about movie stars, yes, but I think it gives us many greater things to think about. If nothing else, you'll stop and feel grateful, at least once, for your comparatively quiet and sane existence.

CBR Book 16: Last Voyage of the Valentina

2011-04-03T14:10:00.001-04:00

Last Voyage of the Valentina, by Santa Montefiore

I decided to read this book because a friend of mine wrote a blog post dream-casting the movie adaptation, and it sounded like brain candy. Everyone needs brain candy sometimes, right? There are lots of problems with candy, though, and so too this novel. It's basically a dressed-up romance novel with all the schmoopy writing and dialogue, a fair amount of sex (though not particularly well-written) and not much in the way of interesting character development or even sympathetic characters. The "mystery" at the heart of the novel isn't much either; half of it is easily solved, and the other half offers no clues whatsoever. But, if you're looking for something relatively mindless with which to pass the time, you could probably do much worse than this.

Alba Arbuckle (oy) is a spoiled playgirl who doesn't work, spends all of her money on clothes, and is so beautiful as to have men at her feet wherever she goes. She's got a distant but doting father, an "evil stepmother," and a mysterious, Italian mother for whom the houseboat on which she lives is named. When Alba discovers a portrait of her mother, Valentina, drawn by her father, she decides it's high time she went in search of her roots. To do this, she disrupts and upsets her family, enlists the help of a poor sap literary agent named Fitz who is in love with her (apparently he finds her brattiness charming?), and eventually sets off for Italy to find out about her mother's life and death. Along the way, I'm sure you'll be surprised to learn, she finds herself.

Seriously, Alba is one of the worst heroines I've ever come across. Everything she does is for herself, and everything that doesn't go her way is clearly done with malice, to ruin her life. She's twenty-six going on fifteen. Her cast of supporting characters are painted in such broad strokes, perhaps to make her seem more interesting?, so as to be hardly worth mention. Montefiore is going for a sort of "English values" vs. "Italian passion" idea, but her stolid English types come off as stodgy and boring, and her passionate Italians just come off as annoying. While Alba learns to embrace both sides of her heritage, her transformation is so hurried and so rote that there's no journey to be witnessed, no soul-searching or realizations. One minute spoiled brat, the next, lovely human being.

The novel is two stories entwined: Alba's own story, and that of her parents, told in flashback. The structure of the novel works fine, and I do think that it could actually be made into a creditable movie (although I disagree with most of my friend's casting choices). As a novel, though, it's strictly treacle. The language is truly florid and ridiculous. Everyone either is (or was) devastatingly gorgeous or grotesquely unattractive. All of the plot points get neatly tied up with a bow at the end, except for the love story between Alba and Fitz, which gets built up for a while but then unceremoniously dumped. It turns out that even though Alba has "changed," she's still going to get her own way, and the truest love extant in the novel is that of Alba for herself. What a beautiful thing.

CBR Book 15: The Hunger Games

2011-03-27T10:16:00.001-04:00

The Hunger Games, by Suzanne Collins

Let's just get this out of the way, first thing, so that those of you who are so inclined can declare me insane and go on with your lives: I thought this book was very mediocre.

Yeah, sorry. I really did try. I will admit that I tend to avoid things that are insanely hyped up. I've also recently become very tired of reading books in a series; the commitment is sometimes exhausting. And so, I have been avoiding these books like the plague for a while. But, as often happens, I decide to stop being a curmudgeon and see what all the fuss is about. And just so you know that I am always willing to admit when I'm wrong: I started reading the Harry Potter books after #4 came out, and became a huge fanatic. I mean, I can admit now that they're fun and inventive, but not necessarily terribly good from a literary standpoint, but I do love 'em dearly. But anyway. Back to the present day.

The Hunger Games is the first book in the new YA series hotness. It depicts a dystopian, post-apocalyptic state in the mid-Atlantic region of what was once the United States. The denizens of the Twelve Districts are poor, hungry, and extremely repressed by the people of the Capitol, who are effete and shallow. The worst of the situation is the annual Hunger Games, in which twenty-four children (a boy and a girl from each district) are thrown into an arena and forced to fight to the death. The game ends when there's one contestant left standing. The winner is set for life: returned to his or her district, given a large house and large sums of money. It's crowd-control at its most sadistic: the people are forced to first watch as their children are randomly selected as participants (called tributes), and then the games are televised as "entertainment". It's really a pretty disturbing, albeit interesting, concept for the central idea of a young adult fantasy novel.

Our main character is Katniss Everdeen, a teenager who lives with her mother and younger sister in the lowest district of them all, District Twelve. Katniss is the street-savvy one: she illegally hunts game and trades it on the black market in order to provide for her family. When her little sister, Prim, is selected as a tribute, Katniss of course volunteers to take her place. She is joined by a young man named Peeta, who showed her a kindness long ago. They journey to the Capitol, where they are paraded around, celebrated, and trained to survive. They are naturally at a disadvantage, being from the poorest District, which has only ever had two winners in the history of the Games. The lone surviving winner is their coach, Haymitch, and he's a drunken lout.

Now, let me ask you this: is there really anyone that doesn't think they don't already know how this is going to end?
I'm not suggesting that a predictable storyline is enough to ruin a novel, and in fact, one of the things Collins does best is keep the tension running high. She also succeeds in using first-person narrative (the story is told by Katniss) to really bring home the sense of isolation and danger that exists for the tributes. Katniss struggles constantly with the question of who to trust and how her own feelings are going to affect her chances.

For me, though, the first person narrative is also the main weakness of the novel. Katniss, despite her clear bad-assness, is kind of a bore. The language and descriptive passages are very terse. I do acknowledge that this brevity adds to the picture being painted, but being descriptive with fewer words is an enviable skill, and I'm not sure Ms. Collins has it as much as, say, Hemingway. I know, I know, it's "only YA". But so are some really excellent pieces of work, like the Narnia Chronicles. A book can be for young adults and still be beautifully literary. I found the writing to be rather uneven, as well. Throughout, Collins managed to keep the excitement and thrill of danger moving at a good pace, but in the final chapters, it's as though she realized she was two days away from her deadline, so decided to rush. The climax barely even gives you time to catch your breath, nor does it measure up to the events of the Hunger Games up to that point. Collins seems in a hurry to lay the groundwork for the rest of the series, which is understandable, but perhaps not worth rushing the end for. The foundation's laid pretty well throughout the novel, I think.

The last thing I'll say, and this is truly nit-picky, is that somebody needs to lay off the commas, or be less concerned about her word count, or something. Part of the problem with the writing style is that it is trying to be brief and to the point, but is also trying to sound conversational. Again, that's a hard skill to master, and I think that had Ms. Collins chose to be the tiniest bit more free with her words (say, using an "and" instead of merely a comma) the result would be more enjoyable and natural to read.

As I said before, I'm a little over YA fantasy fiction, so feel free to discount my opinions here. The Hunger Games was a fine way to spend a couple of afternoons, but I didn't feel that it was particularly deserving of all the hype. Maybe the next two books get better? I'm not really sure I'm inclined to find out, and that's kind of the gist of what I have to say about this novel. If a first book doesn't truly compel me to want to read the others, then it hasn't done its job.

PS: Jennifer Lawrence is, IMO, a really crappy choice as the star of the inevitable and upcoming film adaptation. I wish her luck.

CBR Book 14: The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society

2011-03-20T09:42:00.001-04:00

The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society, by Mary Ann Shaffer and Annie Barrows

The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society is a reasonably touching historical fiction about the German Occupation of the Channel Islands during World War II, disguised as a charming little story about quirky people who like to read and write letters. Juliet Ashton is a young authoress in London immediately following the events of the war. She's just come off a book tour for a series of vignettes regarding the war, and is burned out by it all when she receives a letter from a man who has somehow come across a book that once belonged to her. Soon she is corresponding with various members, and is drawn into the world of the Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society, and is fascinated by their stories of the occupation. Eventually, she reaches the determination to write about the experiences of the people of Guernsey, and goes there to do further research. What she finds is much more than anticipated: friends, family, and love.

What can I say? I love epistolary novels. I'm not sure why ... it might be because I find characters and character development to be the most important aspects of a novel, and when the story is told through the eyes of the characters themselves, you get so much of them along with the story. This novel is no exception. The characters are nothing particularly exciting, but they're warm and somehow familiar. The stories, though, are fascinating. I thought I was reading something light and fun, but the stories about the Germans, some good and some bad, are touching and poignant. The overall tenor of the novel is one of weariness and cautious emergence. People are almost afraid to hope again, to laugh and to love. In that sense, it seems as if there's almost an excuse for the characters to be slightly less than dynamic. They've shut their true selves away in order to survive the war, and they're just now starting to open up again.

All in all, a fun and thoughtful little read that will take you an afternoon. Charming and not without a couple of twists and turns to keep you guessing, at least a little bit.

CBR Book 13: Judi Dench: With a crack in her voice

2011-03-18T13:17:00.001-04:00

Judi Dench: With a crack in her voice, by John Miller.

Were you aware that Judi Dench is awesome? You probably were, but if you'd like to know a little bit more about her awesomeness, you should read this biography. It's pretty interesting, but it does come with some caveats.

1. If you ever entertained any notions of a career in theater but went on to do something practical, like be a librarian, this book will make you regret this choice. 2. You will be forever regretful of all the amazing theatrical performances you had no opportunity of seeing. I'm not just talking about Dame Judi's (although, my god); she talks about seeing other performances as well. For instance: Did you know that Ciaran Hinds originated the role of Larry in Closer on the stage? Gah. 3. You will be sorely tempted to quit your job and spend the next six months reading all the plays that get talked about. You're still not all the way through the entirety of Shakespeare, and you've read almost no Chekhov and you're ashamed.

If you can get past all that, though, it's a good read. It's a little bit confusing organizationally, but it's mostly just amazing, the career that woman's had. It really speaks a lot to the differences, perhaps, in how acting and showbiz works in the UK as opposed to the US. Judi Dench was a tremendous deal over there (and to people really in the know here) long before she became a noted film actress. She had done practically everything there was to be done in terms of Shakespeare, and done it with everyone who was anyone. For her to become a noted film actress seems really almost like a postscript.

Perhaps my view is a little cynical, but that's a far cry from how it sometimes seems that actresses "make it big" here in the US ... somebody says "Gosh, you've got a pretty face," and the next thing you know, you're having a screen-test. That's not entirely fair, of course. In the last bio I read, of Katharine Hepburn, she'd certainly done a fair amount of stage work before she headed West. Still, she hadn't had the formal training that Dench did (she attended a dramatic arts school of note), and she hadn't been doing the really classic stuff. Her first major role wasn't Ophelia for the Old Vic. Ok, fine, maybe I'm just a snob.

Anyway, it's a really interesting glimpse into the life of Dame Judi. It's not at all a "sit down and talk to your subject" kind of thing, rather, the biographer, John Miller, followed Dench around and watched her rehearse, talked to her directors and her peers, and has composed his sense of who she is from the stories told by others. She's a born leader, a practical joker par excellence, and a force of nature on-stage, apparently. And she's played practically everything worth playing. She probably won an award for it. She didn't like being Portia or Regan. She was supposed to originate a couple of roles in Cats, but she tore her Achilles tendon. She has actually directed a fair amount of plays, the first being Much Ado About Nothing, starring Kenneth Branagh (for whose company she was asked to direct) and Samantha Bond.

Yeah, I'm kind of in awe now. In all honesty, she sounds like an amazing person, but I think the biography is much more interesting in its stories about acting and the British stage. If you have an interest in any of these things (and you're probably a Pajiban, so it's possible?), I'd recommend this book. But only if you've got time to read the entire works of Shakespeare afterward.

Open Letter, part 552?

2011-03-11T22:12:00.002-05:00

Dear celebrities,

I like to look at pictures of you. It's mostly for the clothes. However, when recently perusing a gallery of "grocery store looks" (because I don't get outfit ideas from the gowns you wear to award shows), I noticed something. NONE OF YOU ARE USING REUSABLE BAGS. Really?? C'mon, now. Surely some of you drive a Prius and recycle a bit. God knows you can afford designer grocery bags, or some such nonsense, since you clearly all shop at Whole Foods. And yeah, you're shopping at Whole Foods. Theoretically that means you care about organic and/or sustainable food, although maybe that's just because it's trendy, and more expensive than shopping at Ralph's?

Anyway, get with the program. Reusable bags. Before long, teen-aged girls will be writing into People.com to ask where J-Lo got her adorable leopard-print shopping bag, and the world will be a better place. Seriously.

Kisses,

Me

CBR Book 12: Among Others

2011-03-05T09:21:00.000-05:00

Among Others, by Jo Walton.

You would think that combining a love of science fiction, fairies, libraries, magic, and Wales would be a winning combination. At least it would be for me. But somehow, Jo Walton misses the mark. Perhaps she has read too much SF, which I generally find to be lacking in terms of the writing and characterization ... she should branch out and read more fantasy, or literature, or something.

Among Others is about Mori, a Welsh teenager in the late 70s/early 80s, who is adjusting to a new life. Her mother is, as she puts it, a "mad witch," she has lost her twin sister, and she has been more or less taken in by her estranged father and his three half-sisters, who send Mori to a snooty English private school. The things that make Mori tick are science fiction, magic, and interacting with fairies. The story is about Mori coming to terms with the loss of her twin, learning the boundaries of magic, and mostly just growing up and accepting herself.

Although Mori is rather an interesting character, her voice (the narrative is her diary) is not very compelling. Despite the nature of her adventures (fairies and magic and all), she's very dry. It's not that flowery language is a necessity when dealing with fantasy, but one just never feels that one really gets into Mori's head, somehow. The structure of the novel and the progression of the story does work well ... it is dryer and less interesting early on, but opens up as Mori herself grows and finds the places where she fits in.

Another issue is all the references. It's a very hard thing to use very specific knowledge in a novel, I think. If you throw in too much of it, and it's too esoteric, your reader is largely left scratching his (merely a literary pronoun, deal with it) head and wondering what on earth you're talking about. Mostly, it's just kind of annoying. I grew up with a lot of sci fi/fantasy, but I definitely moved more towards fantasy and "regular" literature as I grew up. I recognize most of the names of authors that Walton throws out, but I certainly haven't read all of their work, so I feel as though I'm missing some added depth to the novel. I think maybe what Walton was trying to do was negate the typical lumping together of sci fi and fantasy ... Mori definitely moves back and forth between a more practical, almost clinical view of the world and the sort of "old knowledge" of fairies and the connections between things.

All in all, a disappointment. It's as though Walton took that list of things: science fiction, magic, fairies, libraries, and decided to write a novel that somehow incorporated them. She more or less succeeded, but perhaps she spent more time developing on those subjects than on her characters themselves? In the end, it's clear that Mori has grown, that she's learned something, and so she's not a completely static character; but I wouldn't call her terrifically dynamic, either. It's interesting as a twist on the usual "coming of age" story, but it doesn't quite stand up on its own legs, in my opinion.

CBR Book 11: The Angel's Game

2011-02-25T09:15:00.000-05:00

The Angel's Game, by Carlos Ruiz Zafon.

The Angel's Game is a puzzle; and it's one which I'm not entirely sure has an actual solution. It's ultimately so confusing that I'm not entirely sure whether or not I enjoyed it, or if I'm just colossally disappointed. I think it must be somewhere in between.

David Martin is an aspiring young writer who gets his start writing tawdry, sensationalist novels for a Barcelona newspaper. Even though his stories are wildly popular, he is still working his fingers to the bone for bread crumbs due to the political nature of such things: those with money and/or power are the ones who get credit for lesser works, while those with true talent and no name recognition stay in the gutter. Everything begins to change when he is approached by a mysterious foreign publisher who wants to pay him a fortune to write a great work. David's life becomes one of his novels, full of intrigue, violence, and consequences. As the story progresses, one finds that the narrator seemingly becomes less and less reliable, and in the end, the lines between fact and fiction are completely blurred.

Written in the first person, Zafon's protagonist is actually a pretty enjoyable character. He's clever, self-deprecating, and has a wonderfully sarcastic sense of humor. I think it's part of what really works, is that even while the action becomes more and more fantastical and far-fetched, David Martin's earnestness and candor keeps the reader believing his side of things. Most of the other characters are nicely drawn sketches, and we don't delve into them too much. Again, I think this helps the narrative along, as it keeps David isolated. He doesn't share his mystery with anyone for most of the novel, and when he finally does, it's a complete and utter mess.

I realize I'm probably not selling it, but it's really hard to talk about it without going into the plot in a more serious way, and I don't want to spoil anything for anyone. Here's what I'll say: it reminds me of the movie Memento. I think Zafon is playing with similar themes, questioning memory and perception, and wondering exactly how reliable our own senses are sometimes. Just when you think you've got things figured out, he turns them on their head, goes in another direction, and then does another 180 when you've gotten comfortable with a new theory.

The writing is excellent; descriptive without being verbose, which is just the way I like it. Once again, I don't know how I came across this book, but I think it was mentioned that it dealt with books and writers and things like that, so of course I was interested. While I am a bit frustrated and befuddled by it, it was still a very good read that I think almost anyone can enjoy, provided you're willing to devote a bit of time to a novel. Which, if you're reading this post at all, you probably are. Apparently there's a previous novel entitled The Shadow of the Wind that takes place after the events of this novel, but has much in common with it, both in terms of setting, characters, and style. I might be willing to give that one a try as well ... once I stop trying to dissect this one.

CBR Book 10: Live and Let Die

2011-02-18T09:58:00.001-05:00

Live and Let Die, by Ian Fleming.

For the past several years, my husband and I have been involved in a James Bond movie-viewing project. We've got a few left to rewatch, but at this point, we've now seen all of them. You can read my wrap-up post here, but we're not talking about movies, right? So, when I finished the movies, I had various people tell me I should read the books. I actually read Casino Royale a few years ago, and quite enjoyed it. So, I decided to pick up where I left off, and the next book is Live and Let Die.

In this adventure, Bond is tasked with figuring out a gold-smuggling scheme and disposing of the mastermind of said scheme, who is also conveniently an agent of SMERSH, an organization against whom Bond has sworn revenge. He begins in Harlem, moves briefly through Florida, and ends up in Jamaica. His target is Mr. Big, perhaps "the first great African-American criminal," who has a nation-wide network of accomplices, all of whom are utterly terrified of him because he is believed to be the zombie of Baron Samedi, who is more or less the voodoo version of the devil. Bond is assisted by various people along the way, most notably Felix Leiter (who gets himself half-eaten by a shark) and Solitaire, who is initially Mr. Big's fortune-teller/fiancee, but who of course falls in love with Bond and changes allegiances.

The first thing to say about this novel (and possibly all Bond novels as opposed to the films) is that it was so much more subtle. In terms of plot, there are very few twists and turns. In terms of action, it's all very straightforward. There are gadgets, but they're really very practical things. A surprising amount of the narrative is Bond doing his homework - this novel deals a lot with voodoo, and with the behavior of ocean life, and Bond actually sits around reading books, learning about these things. Some of the descriptions of violence are surprisingly graphic.

Another interesting difference is that the character of Bond is much more layered and nuanced. He is genuinely fond of Leiter, in particular, and his interest in Solitaire is much more "romantic" (as opposed to purely lustful) than has ever been portrayed in film, with one or two exceptions. There's no sex at all in this novel. Bond and Solitaire discuss it several times, but generally he is too injured to make good. One gets much more of a sense that there are two sides to Bond - there's the human side and then the cold, analytical side that is the agent at work. It makes him a much more compelling character than one would expect.

The writing is fascinating. It's very straightforward, very economic, but also fairly descriptive, albeit in odd ways. I think that Fleming provides his readers with details in a way that closely mirrors what Bond himself is noticing - things that would be important for a spy to pick up on, and rhetoric that suits his experiences. Fleming himself was a Naval Intelligence Officer, and I feel as though that really comes through in his writing.

The last thing I want to say about this novel is that it's the kind of thing with which those people who get all in a huff about Tom Sawyer would have a field day. It deals very heavily with black culture, and not in a way that would be considered PC these days, having been written in 1954. There's all the talk of voodoo, lots of eye-rolling, use of the words "negro" and "negress" (only in one instance is "the n-word" used, and it's used as a slang term, not in a particularly derogatory fashion), and in particular, the speech patterns of many of the lesser characters is somewhat shocking. I don't personally find such things offensive because I feel that these depictions are merely showing us the attitudes of the time. It's all treated very matter of fact-ly, again because it's from the perspective of Bond and Leiter, who are merely doing their homework without passing any kind of judgment, but if you find such things unpalatable, Live and Let Die is not the Bond novel for you.

I, however, enjoyed it, and will look forward to reading (and reviewing!) more of Fleming's works in the future.

CBR Book 9: The Alchemyst

2011-02-09T15:30:00.001-05:00

The Alchemyst, by Michael Scott

You know how the first Harry Potter book is Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone? (Or Sorcerer's Stone, for us silly Yanks)? If you recall, Dumbledore mentions Nicholas Flamel, who was the owner of the Stone, and his wife, Perenelle, who were six hundred-odd years old. Flamel being the philosopher in question, which in his times was more or less synonymous with a scientist or a magician, practically interchangeably. Well, Flamel is the titular Alchemyst of this book, which is the first of a series of YA fantasy.

Oh, YA fantasy. It gets so predictable after a while. There's magic, and danger, and there's a prophecy, and there's the normal, average person whose life gets turned upside down and they are the key to saving the world ... actually, that's pretty much all fantasy. Bonus points if the hero/ine is an orphan with no knowledge of his/her origins. In this case, the hero/ine is actually one of each (although not orphans) - fraternal twins Sophie and Josh, who get mixed up with the Flamels and suddenly find themselves in the company of immortals, sorcerers, and goddesses. The Flamels are the guardians of an ancient book of magic that contains, amongst other things, the recipe for immortality. More importantly, it contains (naturally) the means whereby to destroy the earth. What the twins learn is that everything we all know as a myth or legend is actually real. The earth was originally peopled by the Elder Race (which includes those entities later worshipped as gods, vampires, were-creatures, and so on and so forth), before the rise of the "humani". Many members of the Elder Race are still around. And many of them don't like humans so much. Dr. John Dee, also apparently immortal, is working for these "Dark Elders," trying to steal the Book of Abraham from Flamel and use it to bring about the destruction of the human race. Obviously, the Flamels and the twins must try to keep this from happening.

It's all pretty standard stuff. The fun/interesting part is the use of real people (the Flamels and Dee were all real) and the use of mythology and legend. It's sort of like American Gods without all the deep thoughts and Gaiman-esque smuggery. Yeah. I made up that word. Anyway. If you're into this type of thing, it's actually pretty good, if a bit busy. Apparently, at least according to the blurb on the jacket, Michael Scott is an authority on mythology and folklore, so he's qualified to bring in everyone from Bastet to Odin as characters. For myself, I just wanted to read this first one out of curiosity, but I've sworn off series (too much commitment) and I am not sure I feel the need to read the rest of the books. I mean, I can guess what'll happen, more or less. The characters are mostly enjoyable, and I always enjoy seeing what each writer brings to the table when working with legends, etc., so who knows? Maybe I'll break my no-series ban for these. If I do, I'll let you know.

CBR Book 8: Daddy-Long-Legs

2011-01-31T10:42:00.001-05:00

Daddy-Long-Legs, by Jean Webster

What is is about young, aspiring authoresses in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries? They all decide to write high-flying, romantic stories and novels, which are inevitably rejected by a bevy of publishers until the main male in their lives tells them to "write what they know," and then suddenly they're wildly successful? You would think that after a while they could figure that out for themselves. Interestingly enough, the three or four such examples (Jo March, Anne Shirley, Betsy Ray, Judy Abbott) I'm thinking of were themselves created by female writers, so perhaps there is something biographical at work in the revelation.

Jerusha "Judy" Abbott is the heroine of Jean Webster's Daddy-Long-Legs. She's an orphan (perhaps the single most utilized trope in YA fiction) who is "adopted" by one of the faceless trustees of the asylum in which she has grown up. This trustee, who wishes to remain anonymous, decides to send Judy to college so that she may become a writer. He is to pay for her room and board and provide her with an allowance, besides. In return, all she has to do is send him letters about her studies and progress. The catch is that she doesn't know who he is. He remains anonymous, known only as "Mr. John Smith," and he never returns any of her letters.

The novel, then, is epistolary, but entirely one-sided; comprised of Judy's letters to Mr. Smith (or Daddy-Long-Legs, as she decides to call him. All she knows about him is that he's very tall.) They follow her through four years of school as she learns to acclimate to the "real world," makes friends and gains a few admirers, struggles with her studies, does indeed manage to publish and gain notoriety as a writer and basically grows up. Her experiences as an orphan shape her view of the world, and as she matures, we begin to see a very independent and socially-conscious young lady emerge.

I'm not going to give away any more than that ... the denouement of the novel is, in my opinion, completely obvious to everyone but Judy throughout, so it's not worth spoiling. That could just be me, though. Jean Webster went to Vassar (on which Judy's school is clearly based), and I used to work there in Special Collections and Archives. They've got Webster's papers, and researchers were always coming to use them, so I knew a lot about this little story before I finally got around to reading it. But anyway.

I don't want to make Daddy-Long-Legs sound derivative at all. It's a really charming little story. It does seem to me to have various qualities of other novels like A Little Princess and the Anne of Green Gables stuff (although DDL predates Miss Shirley, just barely), but despite the similarities, Judy's voice is entirely her own. Because she is sent to a "nice" ladies' college, she rubs shoulders with more affluent peers, and so her thoughts about society are quite interesting. She notes that her friends take their happiness for granted because they've always had it, and she talks quite a lot about reform and running her own asylum someday, where instead of "duty" as the chief attribute to be molded in young people, she will stress the importance of "imagination". As her college career comes to an end, she begins to argue with her mysterious benefactor on points of funding - she receives scholarships and job offers which he doesn't want her to take advantage of, but she argues that she wishes to pay him back for his kindness and no to become used to having things handed to her. A very independent young lady, indeed!

I really like YA novels that were written during the turn of the century. The depictions of life during that period of time are always interesting, and one can sort of trace the changing role of women in society. In DDL, Judy often talks about "when women have the vote." Much like Louisa May Alcott, Webster was pushing her own social agenda with her fiction. Nowadays I think we take things like higher education and civic ability for granted, and it's good to be reminded that that wasn't always the case. I have a brand-new daughter, too, so I look forward to sharing these accounts of history with her as well.

CBR Book 7: The Weird Sisters

2011-01-30T14:57:00.002-05:00

The Weird Sisters, by Eleanor Brown

There are, among the many, two subsets of fiction; one involves the lives of those immersed in academia, the other concerns itself with those who have left home to find themselves, only to discover that they must go back to move forward. If you combine these two subsets and throw in a fairly large smattering of Shakespearean quotes, you have the very excellent The Weird Sisters.

The weird sisters of literary fame are, as I'm sure you're aware, the three witches who appear in Shakespeare's Hamlet. Eleanor Brown's "weird sisters" are the Andreas girls: Rosalind (Rose), Bianca (Bean), and Cordelia (Cordy). Their father is a renowned Shakespearean scholar and professor, and so they have grown up with the Bard's works, and accordingly, whenever anyone in the family has something important to say, they borrow Shakespeare's words. Thus, the announcement that their mother has breast cancer comes from their father in the form of "Come, let us go; and pray to all the gods/For our beloved mother in her pains."

The three sisters are reunited, ostensibly to help care for their mother, but really to escape and/or muddle through their own problems. Rose, a mathematics professor, has never left the safe confines of her hometown (a lovely, idyllic little hippie-fied bubble of academia), and is struggling with the fact that her fiance (a chemistry professor) has been offered a three-year stint at Oxford, and wants her to join him there. Rose's bigger problem is that she's that kind of person who runs everyone else's lives for them, and is convinced that her family will crumble to pieces without her there. Bean, who ran away to New York City, returns when it has been discovered that she's been embezzling funds from the law firm at which she worked. She stole the money to fund her apparently glamorous lifestyle of booze, couture, and men. Cordy is a free-wheeling gypsy who realizes she must give up her rambling ways when she finds herself accidentally pregnant. While they're all under one roof again, they naturally learn about themselves, re-connect with each other, care for their mother (and father), and more or less solve all their problems. Hey, I didn't claim the novel was ground-breaking in any way.

Despite the straightforwardness of the story arcs, this is still a really enjoyable read, particularly if one is a) a reader, and b) a fan of Shakespeare. The various references and the explanation of the sisters' characters based on their namesakes are interesting and amusing. The characters are all reasonably realistic, and I think that most of us would find a bit of ourselves in each sister. The narrative voice, though, is what makes the novel really interesting: it's in first person plural - in essence as though the three sisters are narrating together. It's a bit confusing at first, but it really strengthens the idea that, although they are very different and they don't always like each other, they share a common bond and history that goes beyond their individual stories. I also really love stories that take place in academic settings. There's this notion that these people are all so terribly educated or smart or clever, but of course their lives are actually a mess, and they are often forced to find a way to perform life functions of the most practical and mundane kind. It's just always entertaining to me; I guess because I sort of wish I lived in that world, but I don't have the drive for a PhD.

Anyway, if you're looking for a good novel with interesting and mostly sympathetic characters, I'd recommend this one. I think I found it in the NYT Book Review ... it's new, and apparently Ms. Brown's first novel? It's probably safe to assume we will be seeing more of her. A very fun way to pass the time!

CBR Book 6: The Wolves of Andover

2011-01-23T22:24:00.001-05:00

The Wolves of Andover, by Kathleen Kent

About halfway through The Wolves of Andover, my husband asked me what I thought of it, and I told him that it read sort of like a historical romance novel, just without all the sex. Upon finishing the book, I regret dismissing it in that fashion. It's a strong read, fascinating in its nods to actual history, and written in such a way so as to evoke the matter-of-factness of its world and the characters that inhabit it.

The novel takes place in colonial Massachusetts, and in Restoration-era London. It follows a strong-willed young woman sent to live and work for her cousin's family, and the machinations of a group of London criminals sent to the New World to track down and capture or kill a regicide: specifically, the man who actually beheaded Charles I under orders from Cromwell, who they believe to be "hiding in plain sight," like many of his compatriots, somewhere in New England.

The characters in the story, in addition to the larger, historical happenings, contend with all the usual problems of the day: the spread of disease, rough passage from England to America, Indian raids, weather, and so on. The writing style accordingly reflects the straightforward, slightly rough-hewn colonial lifestyle; it's not overly descriptive or florid, and what description there is definitely works to evoke the metaphor and simile that would be understood by the subjects themselves. The novel suffers only mildly in that this same rudimentary sketching is applied to the characters themselves. One might hope for a little more depth to the people one meets, but overall, somehow the style works for them, too. They are simpler people belonging to a simpler time, and despite its brutish and short nature, it's almost possible to envy them the simplicity of their lives. You know, when they're not all trying to kill each other.

The Wolves of Andover is a true work of historical fiction: many of the characters were real people (in fact, the author is descended from the two protagonists), although their roles within the story may or may not have been as depicted. It seems to me to be well-researched in its representations of the time period, both in the colonies and in England, and it's a quick and enjoyable read. I picked it up because I do rather like history, although I prefer it to be slightly dramatized, and therefore less dry, than straight non-fiction reading. Again, perhaps a bit more character development, and a little more use of a thesaurus (the author is given to one particular phrase quite a lot; I won't spoil it for you, though), but overall, no regrets. Apparently, this novel is sort of a prequel to the author's The Heretic's Daughter, and I'm undecided as to whether or not I'll give that one a try (I have sworn off series - too much commitment) but it also sounds fairly interesting.

CBR Book 5: For All the Tea in China: How England stole the world's favorite drink and changed history

2011-01-17T16:17:00.001-05:00

For all the tea in China: how England stole the world's favorite drink and changed history, by Sarah Rose

I love tea. Don't get me wrong, though: I'm not a tea snob. I actually find loose-leaf to be rather a pain in the rear, and sometimes I really just love a cup of Lipton's finest. But I drink a cup of hot tea nearly every morning, and when the weather's cold, I'll probably have more than one cup throughout the day. My point is, I'm a tea-drinker as opposed to a coffee-drinker, so when I heard about a book about the history of tea (sort of), I was pretty interested, and sure enough, this book does not disappoint.

For All the Tea in China ... describes a period of about 4-5 years in the mid 1800s, during which a naturalist by the name of Robert Fortune was hired by the East India Company to essentially "steal" tea from China. You see, England and China traded extensively in those days. England provided China with opium, grown in India; China provided England with tea. The East India Company, though, felt that if they only had the raw materials and the know-how, they could produce tea out of India instead. The problem was that the best tea all came from China, and the Chinese tea growers were the only ones who truly knew how to make it good. Thus, Robert Fortune, disguised as a mandarin, went deep into the Chinese interior, to the best green tea- and black tea-growing areas of the country, and stole tea plants, seeds, and any information regarding the production of tea that he could glean. Once he had the materials, he had to get them back to the coast, onto ships, and safely sent to India. He was also responsible for finding tea-makers and convincing them to go to India in order to grow tea for the East India Company. He was, ultimately, successful.

Sarah Rose's history mainly tells the story of Fortune's travels through China; stories that can be read in his own published memoirs. Also of interest, though, are the descriptions of the economic goings-on, the botanical innovations of the time, and the history that evolved out of these activities. The fact that England provided China with opium, for instance, was a fascinating realization to me. They actually fought wars over the stuff! And Mr. Fortune, in addition to bringing tea to India, was also responsible for bringing countless other types of still-popular flora to the Western world. He successfully proved that green tea and black tea come from the same plant (European botanists were convinced that they were merely cousins), and provided evidence that the Chinese green tea producers actually were poisoning their tea by adding Prussian blue and gypsum, which gave the tea a richer green color. He also revolutionized the way that plant life was transported by making important changes to Wardian cases (sealed glasses compartments, kind of like terrariums).

History is often dry stuff, even when a topic of interest is being discussed. By focusing primarily on Robert Fortune, Ms. Rose is able to provide a readable narrative of one man's "adventures," while providing the historic and economic context alongside it. Overall, an interesting read; I would have thought that corporate or industrial espionage was a fairly new concept, but it doesn't really come as a surprise to learn that the East India Company (the world's first global corporation) was engaging in it during the Victorian era. Also, even though I'm not much of a plant person, learning a bit about the economic importance and high aesthetic value of flora was equally interesting.

The verdict? Worth a read, and not just for tea-lovers. If you're looking for something easy and non-fiction, give it a try!

CBR Book 4: Me: stories of my life

2011-01-08T09:30:00.004-05:00

Me: Stories of my life, by Katharine Hepburn.

I love the old, classic movies. I have to admit that I am only a novice in terms of seeing a lot of them, but I'm working on it. You can snoop out my movie blog if you want to know more about that - I won't publicize it here. My absolute favorites are the musicals, and therefore Gene Kelly and Judy Garland. After that, though, I'm all about Cary Grant and Katharine Hepburn. If you haven't seen Bringing up Baby or The Philadelphia Story, I highly recommend them. Comedy genius.

As such, I've been meaning to read Ms. Hepburn's memoirs for several years, and just haven't gotten around to it until now. Having read them, I can't make up my mind as to whether or not I am disappointed. I suppose I was expecting a straightforward "biography," you know, ghost-written by someone else, just with the details filled in by the famous person. This book is not such a work. It's really basically Ms. Hepburn remembering things about her life. What this means is a bunch of random snippets about Connecticut and showbusiness and plays and mostly people, many of whom were apparently a big deal in their time but are not well-remembered today (at least I don't know who they were), provided in sentence fragments with lots of (apparently well-remembered) descriptions of buildings and places and conversations, all through the lens of what you'd expect, I suppose, of Hepburn's personality: blunt, matter-of-fact, and actually a little bit ditzy at times.

I would have wished for more trivia about Hollywood and the movies that Hepburn made, but it was still interesting to read about George Cukor's house and what kind of person Louis B. Mayer was. Hepburn's ruminations on the system of show business as it was in her day is also pretty interesting; it was apparently a lot less of a series of hoops to jump through than I would have thought. People had scripts and things written for them, people were seen in one play and immediately cast in another, and it was apparently no big thing to be seen in something on the East Coast and then immediately whisked off to the West Coast for a screen test. I've read bios of Garland and Kelly that seem to corroborate this, although both of them had more difficulty in some things than Hepburn admits to having had.

There is also, of course, plenty of time given to Hepburn's personal relationships: S. Ogden Ludlow and Howard Hughes and Spencer Tracy. She actually saves Tracy for the last, teasing the reader with it, as though she knows that's what we really wanted to read about. She doesn't shed a whole lot of light on the relationship, either. What I actually came away with was that Hepburn really kind of bought into the faux-romance of Hollywood, despite having come from forward-thinking parents who seem to have had a solid, realistic relationship. Her position on the relationship is one that I would have agreed with, say, 5-10 years ago ... she describes it as very one-sided, her being there and giving her all to Tracy without really knowing if he liked having her around. For 27 years? I'd hope he did. I think probably she just didn't want to share that much, or she didn't feel that giving "his side" of things was her place.

I guess I don't have much more to say about this book ... how does one analyze an autobiography, particularly one not by a literary figure? If you're interested in Hepburn, you ought to read it, otherwise I don't know why you would. It was fun to read, even if the structure left a little to be desired. I now feel the need to add to my Hepburn/Tracy repertoire. Maybe I'll go watch Hepburn's Little Women, currently sitting on my coffee table.

More CBR madness

2011-01-04T12:02:00.003-05:00

Incidentally, if you are so inclined, there is a group blog where all (or rather, many) of the individuals participating in the Cannonball Read are posting their reviews, or links to reviews. Check it out!

CBR Book 3: Her Fearful Symmetry

2011-01-04T11:30:00.002-05:00

Her Fearful Symmetry, by Audrey Niffenegger

HFS is what would happen if you slightly de-crazified Anne Rice and told her to write a ghost story. The twists and turns are very Rice-ian, but there's little to no sex (of any kind) and no overarching obsession to get caught up in. There are also no particularly sympathetic characters, no discernable point to the whole thing, and not enough development to prepare one for the climax of the novel. In one word, Meh.

Elspeth Noblin, a London-based rare book dealer, dies of leukemia and leaves her entire estate to the twin daughters of her estranged twin sister, Edie. Julia and Valentina (the twins) are stipulated to come and live in Elspeth's London flat for a year, together, before they can sell the place. So they do. There they meet Elspeth's neighbors, scholarly Robert (who was her lover) OCD Martin, and his fed-up wife, Marijke. Oh, they also live next door to Highgate Cemetery, the history of which Robert is writing a book about. The twins navigate London, make friends with Elspeth's old friends (Valentina becomes involved with Robert, and Julia appoints herself Martin's nursemaid after his wife leaves him), and attempt to uncover the secret of why Elspeth and Edie have not seen each other for nearly 20 years. They also get to know their Aunt Elspeth, as she is haunting the apartment. That's when the trouble begins.

I'm going to leave the synopsis at that in order to avoid spoilers. Although, as stated earlier, the climax and thrust of the novel really sort of seem to come from out of left field, and when they do, well, you don't really care a whole lot. Seriously, what a bunch of selfish and uninteresting characters. Julia and Valentina are 21 year olds who have done/are doing nothing with their lives. Valentina has aspirations of being a fashion designer, but she and her sister are so co-dependent that they are crippled in terms of actually having lives of their own. Elspeth was a rare book dealer, and OCD Martin is a crossword setter, while Robert gives tours of the cemetery (which is, in fact, quite famous and interesting) while studying the history of the place, and you would think that with these sort of random and quirky activities the characters (and the novel) might be more interesting. But it's not, really - the quirks provide no development and little movement in terms of the plot, so they mostly just feel like Niffenegger selected professions at random. It doesn't mean anything that Elspeth was a rare book dealer, beyond her agonizing about how the twins don't read any of the fabulous books she has in her flat, or how they've got a Hogarth Press first edition of To the Lighthouse in the bath. (The Hogarth Press was Leonard and Virginia Woolf's press, btw, so that's a pretty sweet book - we're talking close to $20k ... in the tub. Eep.)

Oh sorry, rare book nerd tangent. Ahem.

The book is just sort of meandering, I guess, and when the big reveal(s) come, they don't seem to mean anything. Perhaps there is some larger message and meaning that I'm just missing. The writing is quite nice, but ultimately boring. I'm all about characters, and if I don't care about any of 'em, well, then I just don't care. I was interested in the book I guess because of the potential for rare book nerdery and the fact that the title is a Blake quote. And even that is only relevant in the most superficial sense. The main characters are two sets of identical twins. Valentina and Julia are mirror-image twins, which means that they're totally inverted ... apparently down to their internal organs, or something. Also, I think the larger context of the Blake poem ("The Tyger"), dealing with the duality and symmetry of nature, is supposed to say something about the duality of the character's personalities. But that seems pretty peripheral. That point could have been developed throughout the novel, but it's really not.

You know, in thinking about it, I guess I could sort of argue for the main point of the novel being the double-sided nature of most human beings in terms of being selfish vs. putting the needs of others first. There is a lot of exploration there, I suppose. The twins want their own lives, but often put the perceived needs of the other first. Robert struggles between doing what he wants and doing what Elspeth wants/wanted. Marijke leaves Martin because she wants a normal, OCD-free existence, but she still misses him and ends up helping to take care of him from afar. Martin himself struggles between sort of wallowing (no offense to OCD sufferers, but that is how it is presented to a certain degree) in his disability and making the effort to be better in order to reunite with his wife. Elspeth and Edie, well ... let's just say they follow the trend.

So there you have it. As a good former English major, I have found a theme to talk about. It's just not a very satisfying theme, somehow. Alas, not a recommend. I think it's trying to be so deep that it's not even good for just a fun, quick read. One keeps waiting for something that never arrives. Certainly that would be a viable theme for a novel, but it doesn't really make for an enjoyable way to spend an afternoon or two.

Tyger! Tyger! burning bright
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?
In what distant deeps or skies
Burnt the fire of thine eyes?
On what wings dare he aspire?
What the hand dare sieze the fire?
And what shoulder, & what art.
Could twist the sinews of thy heart?
And when thy heart began to beat,
What dread hand? & what dread feet?
What the hammer? what the chain?
In what furnace was thy brain?
What the anvil? what dread grasp
Dare its deadly terrors clasp?
When the stars threw down their spears,
And watered heaven with their tears,
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the Lamb make thee?
Tyger! Tyger! burning bright
In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye
Dare frame thy fearful symmetry?

CBR Book 2: Identical

2011-01-02T10:29:00.003-05:00

Identical, by Ellen Hopkins

My one-line summary of Identical is that it's pretty much When Rabbit Howls for the Twilight set. It's in a sort of a prose poem style, and it deals with pretty much any issue you can imagine a YA book dealing with: sexual abuse, incest, cutting, eating disorders, drugs, sexual promiscuity, love, rivalries, dysfunctional families ... you name it, these girls are dealing with it.

"These girls" are Raeanne and Kaeleigh (oy, those names) Gardella, twin daughters of a successful judge and a would-be Congresswoman, living "the good life" in mid-state California. Their family has its public side, and its private side, and guess what? The private side is pretty ugly. The girls have their means of coping - namely the aforementioned laundry list of issues. Clearly, the status is not quo, and as we follow the first person "poetic" narrative to the (somewhat predictable) denouement, we are treated to loads and loads of teenage angst, plus some fairly disturbing activity for 18 year olds to be engaged in. (Or at least it's disturbing from the viewpoint of someone with a 3 week old daughter.)

Honestly, I sort of wish Ms. Hopkins had just picked one or two issues and dealt with that. The book would be a lot less busy. But, she's apparently a fairly popular YA author, so what do I know? I'm not entirely sure how this one ended up on my "to-read" list ... I like looking at lists of books in newspapers and on NPR and so forth, and I will often just decide that some random list sounds fun and add a bunch of stuff to my own agenda, which I then promptly forget about.

I think that I must have been intrigued by the structure of the novel, which is admittedly somewhat interesting, if better manifested elsewhere (try Out of the Dust if you want novels in poem form). I am not, by any means, belittling the problems that teenagers face in this day and age, and I think it's great that a successful novel can address those issues, but I guess to me the inclusion of pretty much all of them just seemed kind of gimmicky. Still, I admit that I am not the target audience, and perhaps for a girl who's read Twilight and is looking for something with a little more substance, this would be the way to go.

This book is rated R for sexual content, drug use, and foul language. Some scenes may be disturbing for younger readers.

CBR Book 1: Ella Minnow Pea

2011-01-01T11:18:00.003-05:00

Ella Minnow Pea: A progressively lipogrammatic epistolary fable, by Mark Dunn

Ella Minnow Pea (say it out loud if you don't get it) was recommended to me by a friend and co-worker, and I swear that when he was talking about it, it sounded fun and nerdy and mostly kind of silly. It is fun, and pretty darn nerdy, but it really isn't silly at all. In fact, it's a dystopian novel masquerading as word nerdery. Which, if you ask me, is seriously cool. I have a thing for dystopian novels, even though I find them extremely disturbing. And since this one deals in words and language, it's doubly excellent.

The story takes place on the island nation of Nollop, just off the coast of South Carolina. The island's most "famous" native son is Nevin Nollop, author of the pangram "The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog," which, if you're not familiar with it, utilizes each letter of the alphabet. The citizens of the island, accordingly, are word lovers of the first degree. Letters between cousins Ella and Tassie, along with various other people within their sphere, narrate the progressive deterioration of their society, due to the loss of lettered tiles on a memorial to Nollop. This loss (actually due to substandard glue) is interpreted by the powers-that-be as beyond the grave orders from Nollop, dictating the removal of the lost letters from use. What starts out innocently enough (Z is the first letter to go) becomes more and more alarming, due largely in part to the rather draconian punishments handed down for unauthorized use of the letters. Ultimately, in an attempt to save their home, the citizens of the island must attempt to outdo Mr. Nollop and create a new, shorter pangram in order to prove that the ability to do so is not divine.

Sounds kind of cute, right? What I didn't mention, though, is the punishments for using the taboo letters (public reprimand, then stocks or flogging, then banishment or death). Or the fact that the books disappear even along with the first letter. Or the way in which the High Council progressively starts abusing its power, first by reading the letters of the Nollopians in order to uphold their directives, then by seizing the property of banished citizens and those who eventually start to leave the island of their own accord. The progressive silencing of the citizens; those who choose to cease communicating for fear of punishment, and those for whom it becomes increasingly difficult. Those who go mad with the loss of communication. Those who die, all because of letters removed from use.

While I was reading this, I would often find myself in a panic. "Oh crap. Did I just use the letter D?" Seriously, it's really difficult to keep track of that sort of thing. At first the narrators of our story find it an interesting challenge, I think, given that they all have unreal vocabularies. But the fear and difficulty begins to affect the reader later on, as the letters become shorter and shorter, the vocabulary less and less exalted; ultimately, the missives become nearly impossible to read as the characters resort to using alternate spellings and letter combinations in order to communicate. The panic seeps in as the deadline for creating the new pangram looms. Perhaps one needs a somewhat cynical and overactive imagination to really consider what the world would be like if we lost our powers of communication. Perhaps it's a possible reality in today's world of text-speak and spellcheck. Either way, it's scary stuff, at least to me.

This novel is worth reading. It's an easy read that'll only take you a couple of hours, yet it packs a big punch. The epistolary nature of the book brings the subject to the reader in a very personal way, and it allows for a true understanding of what is lost when one removes letters from use. It'll also increase one's vocabulary - you might want to have a dictionary handy. I like to compare dystopian visions: Atwood to Huxley to Bradbury, and so on; Dunn's vision of a world without the alphabet fits right in, believe it or not. Give it a try! You'll gain a new appreciation for that pesky letter Q.

Cannonball Read III

2010-12-31T10:47:00.002-05:00

So! Despite the fact that they watch too much television, don't like Russell Crowe, and think skinny, nerdy guys like David Tennant are sexy (they also loooove RDJ and Fillion, in their defense),I spend a lot of time over at Pajiba. It's a fun site, and keeps me largely up-to-date on movie goings-on. Anyway.

In honor and memory of a former Pajiban, the site hosts an annual Cannonball Read. Basically, people "sign up" to read books (I think we're shooting for 52?) and write reviews of them. And then the site donates money to AlabamaPink's son's college fund. Sounds kinda cool, right? I thought so ... I thought, "Hey. I read a lot of books. I'm always (lazily) trying to find things to practice writing about. And this is for a good cause!" So, I'm signed on. Seeing as there is a new, small person in my life, I'm not entirely sure I can get through 52 books this year, but it's possible. I checked out three from the library yesterday.

So, stay tuned for book reviews! Who knows, maybe you'll see something interesting. :) You know, for those 2 people who still check this site sometimes.

Proposed:

2010-11-17T11:56:00.004-05:00

That those members of our society who are so inclined embark upon a national campaign to ignore a certain family of individuals who hail from the northernmost state of our country. This family of individuals (who will not be named) are most known and represented by the matriarch of the family, who is ostensibly involved in political activities; however, these people are little more than the latest in a long line of "reality celebrities," and as such, do not deserve the attention that we heap upon them.

To the media: stop writing about them. To the rest of us: stop reading about them. Stop watching things about them on television and the internet. Stop commenting about them. Please pass this message on.

IF WE IGNORE THEM LONG ENOUGH, MAYBE THEY WILL GO AWAY.

Us vs. them

2010-10-17T09:43:00.003-04:00

Do you believe that we are all individuals? Like, really believe it? Or do you think that maybe, it's more likely that many of us are carefully, calculatedly individuals, having chosen to fit, more or less, into one of many molds of individuality so that we have people with whom we can identify, and friends with whom to "be individual"? So, my type of individual versus your type of individual?

That's how I feel most of the time. I was an outcast at a small school in a small town from the first grade through the eighth grade. When I got to high school, I finally found friends. This is not going to turn into a post about the recent social issue of bullying. I will keep my opinions to myself, but just know that boy, do I have them. No, the point that I'm trying to make (probably mostly for myself) here is that I question whether or not anyone who has been labeled "different" can ever truly escape that. They may become happy, productive, successful, or even famous, but I would argue that they will still go through life struggling against feeling excluded.

The question is whether or not that problem exists merely in their own heads, or in the greater reality, or some combination of both. I know that, for me, it's probably a combination. Even though I spent high school and college with a good group of close friends, and even though I now have a wonderful, loving husband and a moderately successful life, I would say that in the last 10 years or so, making/finding really close friends has become increasingly difficult. Part of that is my (our) fault: we have moved cross-country twice now to further our careers. We have lived and worked in different places, which makes meaningful social interaction difficult, not least of which because most people attach their own dislike of driving to us. We, on the other hand, are more than happy to drive 30 minutes if it means hanging out with fun people doing something we enjoy. But we're weird like that, I guess.

The problem, too, is exacerbated by social media. Yes, I know you've heard this rant before. It's hard hearing about the fun things your group of friends back in [insert state here] is doing that you obviously cannot partake of. But harder still is hearing about something fun that the group of people you sometimes hang out with nearby did that you somehow missed out on. Maybe at age 35 I'm not supposed to care anymore. Oops. Guess my growth is stunted, since it still makes me curl up like a little child and bawl for about 5 minutes (something I actually didn't do much of when I was a child and really was excluded from pretty much everything, actually. I believe in making up for lost time).

I think that the problem starts in one's own head and extends into the greater world. I think that, for me, I spent so long learning how to function on my own, or with a very small group of friends (which I do have, but they live far away, yes, my own fault) that I ... I don't know, give off a vibe? Do people look at me and think "Oh, she doesn't need us"? With my self-esteem I tend to assume that it is more likely people think I am any combination of the following: loud, obnoxious, not funny, uncool, rude, etc. etc. but that doesn't explain why we (my husband and I) both feel very isolated, because he, at least, is the nicest person on the planet, and I don't understand how anyone could not like him. Maybe they have no respect for that guy who puts up with that insufferable woman.

The truth is that my self-confidence isn't actually that bad. More often what I assume is that those other people are merely part of a different "group of individuals," and that I (of course) am the true individual who does not fit in. And thereagain, I think that's something that has come about independent of me. Sam in high school and college prided herself on being different from everyone. She didn't seek it out, exactly ... she just was, and back then that seemed to still gain her friends and admirers. These days, though, adults seem to have different values, and suddenly, Samantha finds herself just wanting to be liked. It's a reversion, actually, back to grade school, when little Sammi (ugh) just wanted to fit in. The difference is that the goals are somewhat at odds. I really like being myself. I'm a work in progress, a practicing human, as I like to say. And I'm fine with what I like, what I think (and what I think about), how I dress, and so on. But I still want to be liked, and have friends who call on a Friday and say "Hey, what are you doing tonight?" or write on my Facebook wall that they're just checking in to see how I'm doing (although at 8 mos. pregnant I am a bit tired of the question "How are you feeling?"), or post a funny picture of something inane we all did last weekend.

I just want to know what I'm doing wrong. Because all we have in our own lives is ourselves, right? We are the constant. Therefore experience would lead us to believe that, if the same thing seems to happen to us over and over again, it must be me, right?

Nobody really likes being alone.

Things I miss

2010-09-03T13:52:00.003-04:00

Wine (WINE.)
Sushi
My feet. They're down there somewhere.
"Real" yoga. The difference is sort of...the difference between constantly improving/perfecting your actions, vs. what feels like merely a holding pattern.
Sleeping on my back, which I wasn't even aware I really did that much of. But boy, do I miss it.
Serious workouts/cardio. Like, a lot.
My brain. I'm pretty spacey these days.
My ability to walk up a flight of stairs without becoming winded. I'll never take that for granted again.
Did I already say wine?

Happiness is...

2010-08-18T11:11:00.004-04:00

This is a meme. Do it yourself, if you'd like. I was tagged by RTM over at FlixChatter, and I'm going to do it here in order to keep the more personal blogging separate from the movie blogging. Ten things that make me happy. Here we go...

1. My husband. He makes me happy, even when he doesn't. He's my best friend, and I would rather hang out with him than anyone else. Good thing, since he's pretty much the only person I have to hang out with.

2. My cats. We call 'em monkeys. They're hard work sometimes, and they're often obnoxious, but they're also big and fuzzy, endlessly amusing, and surprisingly loving.

3. Helping out friends. It just puts a big old smile on my face.

4. Randomly hearing a song I love on the radio. Sometimes, that can just make your whole day.

5. Mail. I love getting mail, if it's actually FOR ME, as opposed to a bill or a junk mailing. I even get excited about magazines that come every month, and those little red envelopes from Netflix.

6. Food. I could narrow it down, but why bother?

7. Hearing good things about people I like/care about. Yes, that includes celebrities.

8. Tea. I drink it hot every morning. I like various kinds, mostly black, and I am not a snob about tea bags. Yes, I drink it even in the summer, but it's best when it's fall/winter, I have nowhere to be, and I can linger over a crossword puzzle whilst sipping.

10. Exercise. Yeah, I know, I'm a weirdo. I promise I still have days where I am too lazy to do anything, but more often than not, I love a good work-out. If I haven't worked out in a while, I don't even have to do anything fancy...30 minutes on an elliptical machine will have me grinning from ear to ear.

(I'll tell you a secret: unfortunately, that was more difficult than I would have guessed.)

Career decisions

2010-07-28T11:03:00.003-04:00

Recently, I've been thinking about my career. More specifically, about what I would do if I decided to no longer be a rare book cataloger. Now, don't get me wrong. I really like my job, and I have no intention of leaving the profession any time soon. I do have some fears, I guess, about the longevity of rare book cataloging, though, and I think often about that most dreaded of interview questions: Where do you see yourself in 5-10 years?

Someone, during an interview actually, gave me a great answer to that question recently: "In 5-10 years, I hope to be the best cataloger I can be." The lip-service answer, of course, is something about moving up into administration, being the head of a department, supervision, blah blah blah. That's just ... so not me. Realistically, I sort of imagine I will end up in that kind of role someday, but it's not what I'd want. I actually want to be one of those crusty old types who just catalogs the books. Knows everything. Follows orders. That would make me happy.

But. What would I do if I weren't a cataloger? I have no idea. I really can't come up with anything, mostly because I'm lazy, and until someone is going to pay me to sit around and read books, or exercise, or watch movies, I don't have any brilliant ideas. Teacher? Critic? Editor? That last is perhaps the most reasonable, but the publishing industry is scrambling these days, and besides. My grasp of grammar isn't really that great. Some type of journalism? I dunno. I need to write a lot more, and a lot more regularly, before I really get the sense that anyone would want to read what I write. And what would I write about?

Not so long ago, I pondered what I might go back to school for, if not my dream MA in English lit. I came up with linguistics. I like languages and learning about languages, and how we use language ...

Basically, I think I have skills, interests, and inclinations in things that aren't terrifically lucrative, or even conducive to "real" jobs.

Something to continue pondering, I suppose...hopefully, the world will still need catalogers for a little while longer.

Still here!

2010-07-19T08:58:00.002-04:00

I guess it says something sad about the fact that I haven't really blogged here since starting the movie blog, huh? That is, I think, going quite swimmingly ... at least I'm enjoying myself. My current schedule doesn't allow me to watch quite as many movies as I'd like, but I'm still managing to find things to blog about there.

And here? Well, let's see. Summer in CT has been ridiculously hot so far. Work is work - I enjoy it but don't like the logistics of it. We made a week-long trip to MN back in June to see friends get married, and friends get ordained, visit w/family and friends, and see a Twins game at shiny new Target Field. We also made a trip down to NYC to see the Twins v. the Mets at Citi Field. They won both games, so we're 2-2 this year. Yay! We also traveled to Vermont over the 4th of July weekend. Neither of us had ever been there, so we wanted to visit, and since we have friends who live in Montpelier (more or less) and Burlington, we had good excuses. Good food was had, good conversation, and an excellent hike. And now, we stay put for a while. Last weekend actually featured some fun activities, though - CAKE was playing in Danbury, on Andrew's birthday, no less, so we caught their excellent show. They played all of my favorites, because, of course they did! We also saw Inception (excellent!) and went to Shakespeare in the Grove for an al fresco performance of As You Like It (because really, is there any other way to see it?) Hoping to get to a Rockcats game (local triple-A team, Twins affiliate) this weekend, perhaps.

Otherwise, all is well.

Oh, and uh ... the elephant in the room? For those who may not know, we are expecting the debut of "Rock Star Klein" in December. All going swimmingly so far. Recommend keeping a look-out on Facebook for more information, as blogs are not the most private things ever. Or shoot me a message if you'd like to be included in any emailings that happen. :)

So yeah. How are you?

Psst.

2010-06-22T20:31:00.003-04:00

Now I've gone and done it ...

Banana Oil Movies

Needs lots of cosmetic work, but hey! It's a start...

Open letter, # I forgot

2010-06-22T11:33:00.001-04:00

Dear Javier Bardem,

Could you please do more accessible movies, and fewer heavy, serious ones, so that I can see more of you? My Top Five list has a vacancy, and you're the front-runner.
Thank you!

Love,

me

Blog news

2010-06-04T09:07:00.003-04:00

By posting it here, I'll feel more held to it.

I am planning on starting a new blog devoted to movies/film. Haven't fully nailed down a name yet, haven't started writing posts - it's just in the works. I'll let you know when it's going to happen. Right now I've got a week before I go on vacation for a week, so not really sure if it'll happen before then.

At that time, several of the posts here regarding movies (and books about movies) will be moved (I hope) to said new blog, and this blog will return to its uninteresting stream of consciousness litany of opinions.

As such - here's what I'm thinking about this week.

*Oil spill. The !@%!@#^% oil spill. My god. There are no words.
*Peripherally, I am good with the fact that Obama is not "venting" his frustration. That's not his job, people. I think it says a lot about our tabloid culture that we ... what, exactly? Just want Obama to stand at a platform and struggle with showing his anger while not cursing? What would that solve, precisely?
*That whole "ruined perfect game" thing. Look, I've been a fencer for 17 years. I've seen bouts won and lost on "bad calls". I've seen directors look at video after the fact and say "Oops. Yeah, I was wrong." It's part of the game - ANY game. Let's move on, shall we?
*Vacation! We are going to MN for a week to attend a wedding, attend an ordination, see a Twins game in their shiny new stadium, see lots of friends, hopefully meet some cool bloggers, and just generally enjoy ourselves. Woot.
*I'm reading a new book about movies, (It's about John Hughes, mostly, and the impact of the great "teen" films of the 80s) but I won't go into that. Suffice it to say I am craving lots of James Spader and RDJ. :D

Glad it's Friday. Enjoy the weekend!

More movies

2010-05-18T21:12:00.002-04:00

I'm reading a book right now entitled Hellraisers: The Inebriated Life and Times of Richard Burton, Peter O'Toole, Richard Harris & Oliver Reed, and it's lead me to realize that I have never seen a Richard Burton film, and have really only seen O'Toole, Harris, and Reed in more modern things. I don't remember Camelot (Harris) or Oliver! (Reed). The only thing I can think of having seen w/O'Toole in it is Stardust, although someday we'll get around to Lawrence of Arabia. I love Harris and Reed in Gladiator, and truthfully, I have loved Reed ever since, and only because of, Black Arrow, which is lamentably unavailable on DVD. WTF, Disney??

All of this is just to comment on my increasing commitment to movie geekdom. In the last year or so I read a Gene Kelly bio and a Judy Garland one, and have plans to read one on Chaplin at some point ... Hollywood's fascinating. I think we forget that the antics of the obnoxious celebutantes and crazy actors of today is truthfully nothing new. Seriously, read Hellraisers and you'll realize that today's gang is pretty tame by comparison. The writing's kind of a mess, but it's terribly entertaining.

At any rate, I've now added Becket, Cleopatra, and Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? to the old Netflix queue ... Camelot's already on it, as is A Lion in Winter and Oliver!. Fun times ahead! Any recommendations to add?

New focus?

2010-05-10T12:15:00.000-04:00

I'm not necessarily turning into a movie blogger just yet, but when the fabulous RTM asked me to do a guest post about new favorite, up-and-comer Mark Strong, how could I say no? Read it here, and of course, many thanks to RTM for the honor!

Iron Man 2

2010-05-10T08:33:00.002-04:00

Despite the amount of movies I see, I have long resisted writing reviews, for a variety of reasons. Mostly, I think I just don't have the attention span. However, I read a lot of reviews, and in this case, having seen the movie now, I feel the need to offer up my own opinion in order to set the record straight. I am not a snooty movie critic. My main desire in seeing a film is usually just to be entertained (although sometimes it's to see a specific actor). I am, admittedly, a huge fan of Robert Downey, Jr. I have what I consider to be a reasonable amount of geek cred, so I am usually down with the newest comic book film, and I do love a good popcorn flick. I hated The Dark Knight for being far too overwrought and overrated. So, with that disclosure, read on, if you wish.

We watched the first Iron Man movie on Friday night as a refresher course, and I think that was a good choice. It reminded me of the things I loved: the banter, RDJ, the scenes where it's just Tony Stark with his computers and robots, the sheer badassness of Iron Man himself, Jeff Bridges; and of the things I was less thrilled with: Terrence Howard (seriously, ugh) and the big finale fight scene, mainly.

SO, Iron Man 2. Let me start out by saying that, for my money, all of the things I liked about the first movie were still present. I had most feared for the "Stark working" scenes, thinking there just wouldn't be a need for them, but they're still there (along with Paul Bettany as Jarvis, who, seriously, I want to help walk me through my day). AND, they fixed the things I didn't like. Switching Don Cheadle for Terrence Howard was a brilliant move, IMO ... he just fits right in. And the final fight scenes were much better this time around. Good stuff. Now, as for the rest of the film.

First of all, one of the things that a lot of critics complained about was the slightly more serious tone of the second movie as compared to the first. I actually found this to be completely appropriate and enjoyable. In the first movie, Tony Stark had his world changed. He created a superhero suit that looks really fun, and he accordingly enjoyed it. For the second go-round, the bottom should drop out. Consequences should arise, troubles should multiply, characters (I'm looking at you, Pepper) should be more stressed out. All of that seemed completely natural to me, and completely understandable within a greater story arc. And there were still light/fun moments, heightened, I think, by a slightly more cohesive cast.

About that cast: Cheadle, as mentioned, is awesome. Paltrow's Potts has been accused of not being as "good" this time around, but again, I think that within the framework of the story, she was right on. Scarlett Johanssen, as Stark's new assistant/possible double agent, has been called "wooden" by numerous sources. There again, though, I would argue that to me, that just seemed like her character. She was supposed to be apart from "the gang" and of questionable motive. She delivered. Mickey Rourke was a fun bad guy. Maybe not as fun as Jeff Bridges, but so what? And finally, Sam Rockwell was just fabulous. He pulled off being a knock-off Tony Stark perfectly. Where Tony is charismatic enough to hardly ever seem slimy, Rockwell's Justin Hammer was a complete little shit, and I thought he was perfect. Bonus points for director Jon Favreau's slightly stepped-up role as Happy Hogan. About RDJ, I'm not sure what needs to be said. The man is a revelation. He can convey more in the blink of one eye than most actors can do in their entire body of work. Call me biased if you want, but the guy's incredible, and I love that we have a comic book franchise with a lead who can seriously act.

On to other matters -- like the plot/story. Critics complain here, but may I remind you that this is a comic book movie? Plots are always a bit ridiculous, maybe a little hole-y, usually fairly busy. This one is no exception, but I really didn't think it was overloaded. Didn't feel there were too many villains, really liked the character development (in terms of Stark) ... I actually wished they'd done a little bit more with Rourke's character. Overall, though, it was easy to follow (unlike some - *cough*Dark Knight*cough*), and it set up things to come while deepening what was already there. That equals success in my book.

In summary, I think that in terms of critical reception, expectations were simply too high. I totally loved this movie, and my main complaints were that RDJ didn't spend enough time in a tank top, hammering things, and that ScarJo's fight sequences were a little too fast and blurry to be properly enjoyed. We need to remember that in good trilogies (see: Star Wars) the second act is always the dark one, and that's usually a good thing. If you liked the first one, go see this one with an open mind and/or lowered expectations, and I think you'll have a good time. Unless you liked Terrence Howard as Rhodes, in which case, I cannot help you.

Best Picture?

2010-03-11T16:22:00.006-05:00

Unless your roof is a lovely shade of granite, you probably know that the Oscars happened last Sunday. You also probably know that, despite making more money than God, Avatar lost Best Picture to The Hurt Locker, a comparatively tiny film that made a whole lot less money. No doubt there are tons of people up in arms about this, as there are every year. Why doesn't a "popular" movie win the biggest awards? Who even saw The Hurt Locker? Well, members of the Academy. Not me. I saw neither, having no interest. So I have nothing to say about that.

But, when RTM over at FlixChatter asked about Best Picture winners that I wanted to watch more than once, I got to thinking. You may recall (but probably not) that I brought up a somewhat similar topic a couple of years ago. I definitely find those movies that I enjoy watching more "important" than those that somebody else says are worth watching.

But what interested me was the result of those two ideas merging. The movies that the Academy and I agreed upon. And so, I made some lists and checked them twice, and I will share them with you. As such, here are those Best Picture winners that I have seen. I've also made a note of how many times I've seen them, whether or not I'd see them again, and whether or not I own them.

Best Picture winners, seen by me
Mutiny on the Bounty (1935) - 1
Gone with the wind (1939) - multiple, own
Casablanca (1943) - 1, would see again
Hamlet (1948) - 1, undecided
An American in Paris (1951) - 1, loved, want to own
Gigi (1958) - multiple, own
Ben-Hur (1959) - multiple
The Apartment (1960) - 1, would see again
West Side Story (1961) - multiple, not a fan
My Fair Lady (1964) - multiple, own
The Sound of Music (1965) - multiple, own
Patton (1970) - 1
The French Connection (1971) - 1
The Godfather (1972) - 1, would see again
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975) - 1
Rcky (1976) - 1
The Deer Hunter (178) - 1
Amadeus (1984) - multiple
Platoon (1986) - 1
Dances with Wolves (1990) - 2
Silence of the Lambs (1991) - 1
Unforgiven (1992) - 1
Schindler's List (1993) - 1
Forrest Gump (1994) - multiple
Braveheart (1995) - 1
Shakespeare in Love (1998) - multiple, own
American Beauty (1999) - 1
Gladiator (2000) - multiple, own
A Beautiful Mind (2001) - 2, want to own
Chicago (2002) - multiple, own
LOTR: Return of the King (2003) - 1
Slumdog Millionaire (2008)- 1, would see again

What I discovered was that, in a reasonably small collection of DVDs, a surprising number are Oscar winners. I actually went through the longer list of all BP nominees, and the numbers go up accordingly. Those that I didn't personally enjoy I still thought were (generally speaking) remarkable films: well-made, well-acted, solid. Even if I wouldn't watch them again, I appreciate them as very good, except American Beauty. I've just got no use for that one.

So, I mean, of these 31 movies, I would definitely watch over half of them again. Of those, nearly half again I actually own or plan on owning. There are at least 10 winners that I have immediate plans to see, so maybe I'll have to update this list, but still. Not bad numbers for the old Academy, eh?

Vague thoughts

2010-03-03T13:33:00.003-05:00

Here's what I'm thinking about. I'm grasping, so bear with me. I've recently been "reconnecting" (rewatching his stuff) with an actor/characters I really liked as a kid. Preteen, I guess. What I'm finding fascinating is that I really think my eleven-year-old self was on to something. I don't think that I was at a point yet where I can really say I had a crush, but there was a definite connection. And now, I think "Wow. That guy really had something." So it's sort of a chicken-and-egg discussion: Do I really like him now simply because I did then, or is there some fundamental part of my tastes that has not changed? Kind of lame, I guess, but if you know me, you'll know that my love of actors is just a thing, and really, I'd have to say that this guy is the first. Now he's pushing sixty and a grandpa and I miss the slim, blond young man of my youth. I bet he does too. How bizarre that I could come back to it. Obviously, on the screen, he hasn't changed - the characters haven't changed - but I have. But seriously, schoolgirl swooning aside, what interests me is the reconnect. Admittedly, the shows I'm watching were not really children's shows, and so it's reasonable that I would enjoy them as an adult. But it's his performance and characterization that resonates with me, and I'm not sure that it's all nostalgia. Surely some of it is.

Meh. I don't think I'm getting across what I'm trying to. Anyway.

Yeah, vague, random, and probably really lame. My husband is laughing right now, trust. Oh well.

No, I'm not telling who it is. It's too dorky for words.

Open Letter IV

2010-02-17T08:19:00.002-05:00

Dear Fashion Industry-

This just occurred to me. If the reason for having skeletal runway models is that your clothes look best on them, wouldn't it be an exciting, interesting, and potentially lucrative challenge to actually design your clothes so that they look best on normal people? Just a thought. You should get on that.

Love,

5'3", 140 pounds, broad-shouldered, voluptuous me.

Styling question!

2010-02-09T11:21:00.002-05:00

Just in case there are any fashionistas out there who might actually read this. How would you "winterize" this dress, preferably in order to wear it to work?

Bonus points if you work in the shoes.

Go!

Want list, musical

2010-02-04T10:40:00.002-05:00

Arctic Monkeys, Humbug
Lily Allen, It's Not Me, It's You
Katzenjammer, Le Pop
Camera Obscura, My Maudlin Career
Neko Case, Middle Cyclone

Blogging

2010-01-29T16:29:00.004-05:00

So I've updated some of my links to reflect some more blogs/people I like to keep up with ... most of them are people I actually know. So far. ;) I got rid of a few that seemed truly dead, and I noticed that one or two of you have been awfully slack. Yep, boys, I'm looking at you.

I'm kind of slack, too, I admit it. I suddenly find that I have a minor interest in many things, as evidenced by my internet habits: cooking, style, movies, etc. Perhaps I shall make a better effort to pick one thing that I am thinking about in a week and post about it. I'm even considering a not-so-daily outfit posting. Good lord.

Here's what I'm thinking about today: the chalk directive, "Love your bodies" on the library steps. I do love my body. I also love college campuses, and that message is just one reason why. Movies. I'm becoming more of a "movie buff" every day.Subject headings. Seems to me they're being used less frequently, and with less efficiency. What gives? I thought everyone just loved "keywords". Arthur and Arthuriana. I'm cataloging it and reading Malory. Yoga/exercise. Looking forward to going home and doing some.Food. I'm hungry. We've been making lots of new recipes lately, and have successfully experimented with making "homemade" ravioli from wonton skins on two occasions! Also, looking forward to some new eats and socialization with newish friends this weekend. Decorating. Still unpacking.

What are you thinking about?

My wishlist:

2010-01-21T16:59:00.003-05:00

Per a discussion with the fabulous Mari, I would like:

For all of my friends to be in happy relationships, an awesome job at Yale, a kid, loads of cash, a smaller waist, Frye boots for everyone!, tons of cute interesting cardigans in a variety of colors, less cellulite on everyone's thighs, and maybe some Dom Perignon.

Also new kneepads for Mari, and pants for me.

If anyone can do anything about any of that, I'll be your best friend forever. I can give you a list of acceptable cardigans right now,even. :D

Opera #3: Duke Bluebeard's Castle

2010-01-17T11:33:00.003-05:00

Duke Bluebeard's Castle
Music by Bela Bartok, libretto by Bela Balazs

The story of Bluebeard and his wives is a reasonably well-known (?) fairy story written by Charles Perrault (best known for Cinderella). Bluebeard brings a new young bride to his castle, wherein she snoops behind locked doors and discovers that her new husband has horribly murdered his former wives. In the story she manages to escape and live happily ever after. Perrault apparently likes to get a little scary and gory before he serves up the happy ending.

In the operatic version, the bride, Judith, arrives at her home to find seven locked doors. The opera centers around her demands for the doors to be unlocked (based upon her love for Bluebeard and her desire to bring light to his dark home), Bluebeard's protests and eventual relentings, and what she discovers behind those doors. In succession: a torture chamber, an armory, a treasury, and a vast realm, all stained with blood. Behind door number six is a lake of tears. Judith doggedly moves ahead with each door, despite her horror at all the blood, and when she reaches the sixth door, she declares that she's solved the mystery: Bluebeard has murdered his former wives, and it is their blood that stains his castle, their tears that make up the lake behind door six, and their bodies that lie behind door seven. The final door is opened to reveal one part of her theory correct: the wives are there, alive, and shadows of their former selves. Judith takes her place among them, and the opera ends with the castle (and Bluebeard) once again thrown into darkness.

Clearly, this is a much more psychological and ultimately darker interpretation than Perrault's original story. The journey Judith takes is apparently one through her new husband's soul, and in the end, she is assimilated into his life, losing her "self" and merely becoming a part of his whole. I suppose the moral of the story would be that perhaps one doesn't really want to know everything about one's partner's past and psyche. There is, of course, also the notion of a wife's duty to defer to her husband in all things, becoming a part of him rather than an individual.

What is tremendous about Bartok's opera is the music. It rises and falls with creepy/scary tension and tender moments. The accompaniment for each of the rooms truly paints the picture, making this opera a little easier to envision on stage, even while merely listening to a recording. I'd have to say I enjoyed this one, perhaps more than the others ... the story, though, is clearly a hard one to really follow or interpret. I suppose I prefer simple plots and execution, rather than something requiring serious psychoanalysis.

Opera #2: Vanessa

2009-12-18T13:35:00.003-05:00

Vanessa
Music by Samuel Barber, libretto by Gian Carlo Menotti.

Barber is certainly a more recognizable name than Argento, and I would hope that Menotti's name rings a bell as well. Samuel Barber is arguably one of the premier American composers and mainly worked in orchestral music and art song. Vanessa was his first (and more or less only) opera. I'd at least heard of this one in college, since "Must the winter come so soon" was a pretty standard piece for aspiring mezzos. What is really interesting about this is the fact the Menotti wrote the libretto. If you have not heard of him, Gian Carlo Menotti was a pretty major American composer of opera himself, and wrote some of my absolute favorites, namely The Medium and Amahl and the Night Visitors (seasonal!). He was also Barber's "lifelong companion," as they say. Barber was a big fan of opera but just never found a libretto he was happy with, so finally Menotti decided to write one for him himself. It premiered at the Met in 1958.

Vanessa is a former great beauty, now in her forties, who has lived the life of a recluse for the past 20 years, apparently because of a love affair gone wrong. She has no visitors, wears a veil, and covers all mirrors and portraits in her house. She lives with her niece, Erika (about 20), and her mother, "The Baroness," who refuses to speak to her. When the opera begins, Erika is arranging the household for an important guest, who Vanessa is awaiting anxiously. Apparently, the guest is her former lover, but instead of himself arriving, it is his son, also named Anatole, who appears. His father has died, and he is curious about the woman who haunted his father.

Almost immediately upon arriving, Anatole seduces Erika, but then declares his affection for Vanessa herself. Erika, nursing a fairy tale idea of romance, disagrees with Anatole's more worldly approach, and so turns down his proposal of marriage, despite her feelings for him. She decides that since Vanessa has been waiting for so long, living in solitude and ostensibly "saving herself," that it is only fair she be the one to win Anatole's hand. In good order, Anatole and Vanessa announce their engagement, subsequent with our discovery that Erika is now carrying Anatole's child. She rushes out into a bitter winter night, apparently to end her life. She is found, hours later, passed out in the snow. Upon recovering, she admits to her grandmother, The Baroness, that she was with child, but is no longer. Her grandmother leaves the room without a word, and it is clear that she will never speak to Erika again, either.

A month passes (we are told). Anatole and Vanessa are married and preparing to move to Paris. Vanessa is haunted by what that night, and constantly asks both Anatole and Erika if there was something between them. They, of course, deny this. Vanessa tells Erika that the house is hers, and after the newlyweds leave, Erika covers all the mirrors and portraits, locks the gate, and dons a veil, declaring that now it is her turn to wait.

Clearly, a properly "operatic" plot. Since Barber is, like Argento, a "contemporary" composer, we again have a work that is not really given to memorable melodies, or even arias in the traditional sense. The mostly conversational nature of the work leads me to believe that it's probably much more interesting/enjoyable to actually watch a production, rather than simply listen to a recording. The music is the real star here. It moves from solemn to playful to melodramatic in a matter of seconds, and definitely gives a mood of anxiety and impending doom. I really liked the concepts at play here - the supposition that Vanessa's doomed love affair played itself out in perhaps the same way that Erika's does, and that therefore there is hope that Erika herself will be rescued someday by the shadow of her former lover. They're almost like Miss Havisham, with all her clocks stopped, still in her wedding dress. The Baroness hovers over them, disapproving, like a guilty conscience, and they wait with growing anxiety for the day when they will be rescued and can revisit a perhaps lost youth. Kind of what we all want, isn't it?

Opera #1: Postcard from Morocco

2009-12-02T10:38:00.003-05:00

Postcard from Morocco
Music by Dominick Argento, text by John Donohue.

Never heard of this one, have you? It's a one-act, and Argento, surprisingly, is a "contemporary" American composer. The opera premiered in Minneapolis in 1971. It's basically a group of people at a train station, most of whom are identified by something they are carrying: "Hat Lady," "Old-Luggage Man," and so forth. There are also, apparently, entertainments like a puppet show and operetta singers, roles which are doubled by the waiting passengers. Each individual is protective of their privacy and self by way of behaving defensively toward their possessions. In turn, all of the other individuals try to learn about each person, and to see inside each bag, case, or box. Ultimately, one character, "Mr. Owen," (the only one with a name) is forced to reveal that his "painting kit" is, in reality, empty. Once this realization is made, the other characters fade away, leaving "Mr. Owen" to sink into his own fantasy world, and the opera ends.

The text is in English, and the music is, of course, very "contemporary" in style, with not a lot that resembles a traditional aria. Excellent singing, though, and a very expressive style, which is apparently a trademark of Argento's work. I generally prefer things that are much more melodic and lyric, but I think that in this case the style worked to convey the chaos of an being in an unfamiliar, busy place and interacting with strangers.

Ultimately, I thought the opera was very interesting, and the story reminded me of existentialism, of Sartre's "No Exit," and the notion that "Hell is other people". All of the characters display or communicate a fear ... fear of traveling, of other people, of revealing themselves; yet they all want to get others to open up to them. In the end, when they succeed, they are then no longer interested in the individual who has been laid bare. Within the "entertainments" are musical references, most notably to Wagner and his The Flying Dutchman, which focuses on an character supernaturally cursed to sail the seas forever unless saved by a stranger's act of compassion and love. Argento says of Postcard that it "could ... serve as a prologue to Wagner's opera, suggesting a different but equally possible origin of that journey: not launched by supernatural forces at all, but by very human ones, by people who fail to show charity or pity, love or understanding ... Perhaps this unkindness is self protective or thoughtless or not malicious; perhaps it is the result of curiosity, suspicion, selfishness ... Whatever the reason, when it does occur, another Dutchman is born and ... a new voyage begins." (text from CD program notes)

An operatic journey begins...

A project!

2009-12-02T10:31:00.003-05:00

So, in a former life, I wanted to be an opera singer. And yet, somehow, I never really paid that much attention to opera. Recently, I was reminded of how much I do actually like great voices, and I was inspired to listen to some opera. But where to begin? Well, I happen to have a book entitled The Metropolitan Opera: Stories of the Great Operas by John W. Freeman, in which are listed 150 operas deemed "important". And so, the idea for a project was born. I would read the synopsis and information about an opera, and then get hold of a recording and listen to it. Whether or not I will successfully post about them is another story entirely, but I'm willing to try. And so, this is the introduction. I just finished listening to the first opera in the book, and I will try to talk a bit about it momentarily. If nothing else, I ought to feel a little more cultured ... and I'm always saying I ought to listen to more "classical" music.

Thumb-twiddling

2009-11-29T18:03:00.002-05:00

Without going into too much detail, I am here to tell you that I suddenly find that I am not currently singing, fencing, or cataloging. What on earth am I doing with my life? I sort of thought when this day came, I would have had something much more important going on to take the place of these all-important activities. You know, like a kid, maybe. Instead, I putter around the house, spend way too much time on the Internet, have finished watching the entirety of Buffy, the Vampire Slayer, don't work out enough, and sometimes read multiple books in one day.

I didn't really have a point to this post. It's just Christmas music season here at Chez Klein, which always makes me miss the singing. I don't actually miss fencing a whole lot - I needed a break. I will most likely be working again before too terribly long. It's just a weird place to be : Sunday night with the week ahead of you pretty much wide open. I'll try to get some cardio, I'll go to the library and get something else to read ... but what else? Damn all other hobbies for sounding unappealing.

I need something to do.

My philosophy

2009-10-29T11:29:00.001-04:00

As summarized in a conversation with my brother.

People suck. Surround yourself with people who suck less than others, and try not to be a person who sucks a lot. That's about it.

Mac-hell-yes

2009-10-23T15:26:00.003-04:00

I've just been inspired, by news of a big-screen production of Coriolanus and a fun movie blog, to revisit an old LJ post of mine. It basically involves a smash-bang idea for a big-screen production of Macbeth, which has NOT been done properly, and, well, I'm going to let you read my argument for it in a minute. The following is my original post. New ideas for casting will be italicized.

...
So, a couple of days ago, Andrew & I were discussing (ok, I was babbling and he was tuning me out) Clive Owen and Daniel Craig and how they both started out in theatre and have done their fair share of Shakespeare, which I would love to see, of course. I went off on a tangent, trying to figure out what play could be turned into a film version that could star both actors. And it was kind of hard to start out with. They're both in their late 30s-early 40s so you really can't do another version of Midsummer Night's Dream, or anything with the usual two sets of young lovers. I filed this dilemma away in the back of my mind and went on with my life.

But then, this morning, I hit upon the solution, and seriously? It's kind of brilliant. There hasn't been a really good version of Macbeth done recently. There've been some modernizations and weird realizations and things, but not a serious version. Think about it: it's got plenty of room for new-fangled special effects. It's got big battle scenes. It calls for absolutely top-notch actors ... I seriously think it could be a blockbuster. And none of the true leads have to be dewy, fresh-faced youngsters. They can be people in their prime. Anyway. Here's my casting. Yes, I'm thinkin' BIG.

Macbeth
Dramatis Personae

Duncan, king of Scotland ... Ian McKellen (Sir Ian, having already done Macbeth, will enjoy this irony)
Malcolm, Donalbain, his sons ... Gerard Butler, James McAvoy (both Scots)
Macbeth, Banquo, generals of the King's army ... Clive Owen, Kenneth Branagh (who in a perfect world, will also direct)
Macduff, Lennox, Ross, Menteith, Angus, Caithness, noblemen of Scotland ... Daniel Craig (as Macduff, the perfect foil to dark and brooding Clive Owen). Not picky about the rest. Some British-y actors I like : Mark Strong, David Thewlis, Matthew Macfadyen, Dominic West, Jeremy Northam, Rufus Sewell, Chiwetel Ejiofor...
Fleance, son to Banquo ... Freddie Highmore or Thomas Sangster. Sorry, Dan Radcliffe is too old.
A Porter ... Derek Jacobi. Although, Sir Ian in a cleverly disguised double role might be interesting...
Lady Macbeth ... Cate Blanchett
Lady Macduff ... Emily Watson
Three Witches ... Emma Thompson, Phyllida Law, Sophie Thompson (The latter two are Emma's mother and sister, respectively, and I just think the three of them would have a rousing good time)

...

Anyway. Yeah. I think it's brilliant. Somebody needs to get on that. Maybe when Branagh is done with Thor. What do you think?

Road trip!

2009-10-13T10:34:00.002-04:00

I have not been on top of my blog reading. In catching up, I am once again struck with the weird notion that everyone else has a more interesting life than I do, which is most likely not all THAT true. I just think it's boring 'cause I'm in the middle of it. Anyway. We recently completed a rather ridiculous road trip, so I'll post about that. Stay tuned if you read the husband's blog, as he'll probably have a more structured wrap-up at some point. Anyway. Here goes ...

Day 1. Drive from Danbury, CT to Ann Arbor, MI. Yeah, you're reading that right. 12 hours. After about a 30 minute break at the home of friends Jen & Erik (and adorable cats Mariane and Amelia) we head over to Detroit to watch the Tigers kick the crap out of the Twins. Ugh. At least the Twins had the last laugh...
Day 2. Pancakes w/Jen & Erik. Brief look around UMich campus, culminating in lunch w/Jen T. and a friend of hers. We hit the road for Chicago, where we have a really fabulous dinner w/friends Matt and Melissa, then proceed to sit up and talk baseball into the wee hours. Adorable cat is Emmy.
Day 3. Apple pancake (yummm) at M&M's ... celebratory mood, as Matt is celebrating a birthday AND passing the bar! Into the car, headed to Stillwater, MN, home base of the Kleins. Dinner with Mother-in-Law. I realize that homes I've stayed in more than once, occupied by family, really start to feel like home after a while. Adorable cats Maya, Beatrix, and Claire.
Day 4. Head north to Two Harbors and "The North Shore" for the main event of this trip, the wedding of Matt and Jessica! Large group of friends all staying in a lodge for the weekend = extremely fun times. Highlights include Gooseberry Falls in the rain, post-barbecue bonfire, Jones D&D themed sodas, copious amounts of beer, friends galore!
Day 5. Sleep in. Huge breakfast with a crowd. Lovely walk along the shore of Lake Superior. Wedding! The sun came out, ceremony was lovely, celebration a total success. Matt & Jess know how to throw a party. No adorable cat.
Day 6. Up early, driving back to Chicago for a stay with husband's uncle John and aunt Marti. Lovely people. Another house that feels like home. Greek food, yum. No adorable cat.
Day 7. Up for diner breakfast w/John, drive to Indianapolis. Brief stop in sports bar to watch (early and boring) part of Twins/Tigers tie-breaker. Dinner at YAT'S (chili cheese etoufee FTW!!) with CORINNE AND LEILI! "Home" again to my uncles' Rich and Jim's. Twins WIN? Awesome. Adorable cat Tucker and awesome, awesome poochie Max.
Day 8. Bloomington for a brief walk-around and a pancake at the Deli. Pancake and Pax II as good as remembered. Bask in Twins' win. See various people : Robert, SLIS folk, Andrew and Zander, Scotty, Leili and various fencing types. No Sammy K. :( Back to Indy for dinner at Bazbeaux's w/uncle, home to relax. Talk w/uncles until wee hours.
Day 9. Quick breakfast, hit the road for Grand Rapids. Meet up w/ MARIIIIIIIIIIII for excellent lunch, then thrift store madness. Ask her about her new Shania Twain coat, for serious. Stupendous (of course) dinner chez Mari, meet-up w/Dudebro. Adorable cat Sphinx!! Sleeeeeep.
Day 10. Diner breakfast. Hit the road. I convince husband to just go home. Lunch was in ... Hmm. Don't recall. Dinner was Thai food in Scranton. Arrival home? 10:30 pm. Adorable cats? MINE.

Now who's boring? Apologies to anyone in the previously mentioned locations that we failed to see ... there was not a whole lot of time spent anywhere, but it was fantastic to see friends and family, some not seen for upwards of 2 years, and to be a part of a wonderful wedding.

Rude awakening

2009-09-15T22:21:00.001-04:00

What if one is, in fact, living up to one's potential?

Too young to be heroes, too old to play April Fools'...

2009-09-09T09:24:00.002-04:00

Otherwise known as Hip, part II. When last we discussed this particular subject, I had decided to ignore it for the present. Well, I got a little tired of that, so I looked around online and I tried another orthopedic doctor ... one that has actually specialized in research on arthritis, etc. in younger patients. He looks at my MRI scans and does some slightly different X-rays, and declares that I am suffering from hip dysplasia, which basically means that my bones don't fit together properly. As a result, arthritis! We decide, of course, on a cortisone injection. Well, tried that. The shot sucked, the hip hurt in a variety of new and interesting ways for a week afterward, and then it sort of settled back down into normalcy. We're talking my hip's brand of normal, here, which means it still hurts. I suppose on average it hurts a little less, but I am definitely not living pain-free.

So, in the follow-up, doc says that basically, if pain management doesn't work, replace it! Ack. I am also supposed to look into a truly terrifying procedure that involves cutting my bones and trying to fit them back together properly. Seriously, I can't even think about that without bursting into nervous and slightly hysterical laughter. Anyway, my doctor doesn't think that it is an option for me since I am already suffering from arthritis, but he wants me to go get looked at by a specialist anyway. Still need to schedule that...

So. I'm sort of back to ignoring/waiting it out. I don't want to have a hip replacement right now. I guess I'd like to wait as long as possible. Generally, it seems that I will reach a point where I just can't take it anymore, so I guess I'm going to wait 'til I get there. We'll see. I can't really say that I'm dealing with this brilliantly ... I get pretty ticked off sometimes, you know, sort of a "why me?" reaction, or just annoyed that this is happening now, when I'm thirty-four, instead of sixty. But, what can you do? I've altered my workouts and fencing habits as much as I am willing, I take ibuprofin or whatever (only seems to work a little sometimes), and I have a big ice pack that covers my whole hip with which I am in love. That'll have to do for now. I'm waiting until I literally "can't get out of bed".

*Title from "Give In" by Tina Dico

Open letter 3

2009-08-14T16:47:00.005-04:00

Dear Lady GaGa-

Madonna's already done pretty much everything you're doing, and somehow, it looked less silly on her.

Kisses,

S

Loss

2009-08-13T11:00:00.003-04:00

death isolation
futility alone
i am by myself here
you've left
and now the life
has run
away from the light
and happiness
is a shadow
dark and ugly
and
i feel that you
were stupid to go

you didn't know
the love you had
and left behind
for want of attention
that was already there
and left us all
to love you now
that you are gone
and your spirit is left
to carry your memory
alone

JCS, 8/13/1977-8/21/1991

Tournament

2009-08-07T13:37:00.002-04:00

IQ is no problem here
We won't be playing Scrabble for her hand I fear
I need that beer ~ "Seven Days," Sting

I was listening to Ten Summoner's Tales yesterday, and when this line was sung, I thought (and maybe said aloud, alone in my car) "Oh, they would totally be playing Scrabble for my hand." And that got me to thinking ... what if we found our mates via tournament? What sort of competition(s) would you have in order to select the person you wanted to spend your time with? Here's what I came up with ...

It would have to be a multi-part tournament, with a bunch of different, smaller competitions, and a total score to determine the winner in the end. Probably not Scrabble, but maybe Trivial Pursuit, for one of the rounds. I had trouble with an athletic component ... I'm thinking maybe some type of obstacle course that would serve as an equalizer for men with various/different athletic abilities. Definitely a talent portion that could involve any type of performance skill. Maaaybe a stand-up comedy routine? And finally, (this would be the hard one) some type of teamwork assignment for all competitors as a group, designed to determine things harder to fathom personality-wise, you know, ability to work in a group, selflessness, leadership qualities, quick thinking, resourcefulness, etc. Obviously, that's a rough overview, but really, I think it could work. Obviously if someone were not a brilliant athlete, they could make up in other areas, like intellect and talent, and just generally being a good person ... like my husband, who is probably glad he didn't have to go through an obstacle course in order to win my hand.

Open letter, part II

2009-08-03T10:43:00.002-04:00

Dear citizens of the United States -

In case you hadn't noticed, we are (still) in something of an economic crisis. Even if you don't "believe" in it, we are also in the midst of an environmental crisis. This word, "crisis," pretty much means that we (and our government) all have to do things that we might not like. You know, like paying more taxes. Suck it the hell up and learn how to share. Maybe we should all go back to kindergarten?

Disgustedly,

Samantha

Expertise

2009-08-03T10:40:00.002-04:00

Do you ever think about the mundane little things that you do with great capability during the day? The really, really simple things, like buttering your toast or even something that requires a certain amount of skill, like driving a car? We do those things with ease and confidence. We don't even think about them at all. What if we could apply that same sense to the things about which we worry, like our jobs, or a sport, or a performance? Is that how "professionals" do it?

Compare and contrast

2009-07-30T09:31:00.003-04:00

Now see, this is why I still like Russell Crowe better than Robert Downey, Jr. and why I think Crowe's a better actor. His next announced role will be in a drama directed by Paul Haggis entitled Next Three Days. Robert Downey, Jr., on the other hand, will next appear in Due Date, directed by "that guy who did Old School and The Hangover", and co-starring Zach Galifianakis. Sigh.

Sure, RDJ will make more money. And some say comedy is harder than drama. But still ... I am not a big fan of drama in general, but I hate, hate the "new comedy" a la Apatow, et al. C'mon, man. You're a really good actor. Show it instead of making with the paydays.

Rant?

2009-07-10T09:29:00.004-04:00

I very sincerely believe that everyone - individuals, governments, everyone- needs to use their brains to think intelligently and rationally, with moderation, perspective, and a lack of personal bias. I am so incredibly tired of listening to people complain about what the government's doing because they are losing jobs/money/etc. or to governments (or pieces of individual governments) bicker amongst themselves because they think someone else should make the concession, or to people rant and rave about things about which they either have no cold, hard, facts or refuse to believe the cold hard facts presented to them. Why hasn't the economy turned around yet? Because it takes years to dig into a hole, therefore it will take years to dig out. This is not rocket science. The NY Senate gets no work done for a full month because they can't agree about who's in control. Gee, thanks, guys. Way to do what the people hired you to do. The various countries of the world want to argue about who should do more to clean up the environment instead of actually cleaning up the environment. For god's sake. Get over yourselves. Think about someone else for a change. If not your neighbor, then your kids. Grandkids. Whatever.

No-one is exempt. Me included. I'm just so disgusted with humanity in general these days. My inclination when I got into the car this morning was not to listen to NPR. Should've gone with my gut.

Growing old

2009-07-07T09:29:00.002-04:00

So, way back when, I solicited topics for further discussion. One request was to "hear more about the hip". Since it's possible that there are readers (hey, anything's possible) who know nothing about this, I'll try to start from the beginning.

I guess for a couple of years now, I've started having pain in my right hip. As is my tendency, I ignored it for a long while. Knees hurt, hip hurt, whatever, no big deal. Well, the pain started to get worse ... not in a particularly incapacitating sort of way, but just in an "wow, maybe I shouldn't have fenced that last bout" kind of way. It hurt a lot if I was out walking for any extended period of time, or if I was out in cold weather. And, since I am currently gainfully employed with insurance benefits, I decided that maybe it was time for it to get looked at.

I went to see an orthopedist, who poked and prodded a bit. Of course, it behaved perfectly. They took x-rays. Everything looked normal. Next step, MRI. But not just any old MRI -- one with an arthrogram, which means injecting a contrast solution into the hip joint so that those bits show up clearer. I do not recommend this activity. The MRI itself wasn't as bad as I feared (apparently, I am not claustrophobic), but that damn shot was painful, and my hip hurt for about a week afterward. It didn't help that they managed to hit a nerve while they were in there, I imagine.

What the MRI told us is that I have "lost" a good bit of the cartilage that ought to be padding my hip joint. We are all bewildered as to how that happened. The doctors (I ended up seeing a second one, as well) keep asking if there's been any sort of trauma or injury. There hasn't. I am apparently too young for a hip replacement, and one of the doctors actually said "this isn't the kind of thing we do a replacement for." However, there's not really a fix. I got a lot of noise about pain management...but I decided that a steady regimen of Aleve and/or cortisone shots don't really appeal to me at this point in my life, for various reasons. One doctor said physical therapy wouldn't really help, the other said it might, so I might look into that at a later point.

For now, I'm just limping along. I'm sort of learning what sets it off and what doesn't ... unfortunately, exercising 6 days a week seems to be problematic. It was pointed out to me that loss of cartilage with resulting bone contact, inflammation, and pain is essentially arthritis. So, I've got an arthritic hip at the age of 33. Apparently, that's fairly unusual for someone under the age of 65. But what can you do? It's not as though I can do something that will bring about the return of that cartilage. I plan on just keeping on and seeing what happens later. I might go back to another orthopedist at some point, just to see if they have anything different to say. And maybe, when I'm old enough, they'll replace the sucker. I have to admit, I'm kind of hoping for that. I totally want to be that 50 year old vet fencer with the bionic hip.

The Poet Lovers - Eugene Field

2009-07-02T10:22:00.003-04:00

Completely charmed by this poem I just found ... it's the final piece in a book I'm processing.

In some cases, it helps if you speak it aloud. I think my favorite line is Speak not at Talbot give some sign,/However Smollet be.

The art of being grown-up

2009-06-22T00:35:00.003-04:00

Went to a conference. Ashamed of feeling like a kid, along for the ride. Everyone's so serious and intellectual, and I just don't know how to be that way. I'm not really 100% convinced that I have the desire ... I'm lazy. I do know that I meet incredible people who leave me with the desperate need to be impressive. But really, I just have more interest in life itself than in any particular aspect. I've never been able to devote my whole mind, body, and being to a single subject. Is that a bad thing? There are plenty of people out there who contribute, right, without being the world-changers? Do the people they admire still think highly of them, just as human beings, or are they merely disappointed?

...Rather, does one really have to be defined by one's career? Motivated, inspired, intrigued, yet confused, desirous, lost.

Things on my afternoon walk downtown that made me smile

2009-04-30T18:17:00.003-04:00

*This on my iPod.
*Tulips!
*People jogging.
*A gentleman carrying a Chico Bag.
*An elderly woman who reminded me somehow of my grandmother.
*The building with the "Danbury Police Community Services Building" sign. Aren't the police, by definition, entirely "community services"?
*The boy in CVS who attempted to chat me up by remarking on the amount of cat hair on my fleece jacket.
*The business employee out in front of his store watering the shrubbery ... with a little silver watering can.
*The clock sticking out of the side of the building (that did not say four of two).
*Did I mention the tulips? I love tulips.

Oh, hello

2009-04-24T15:24:00.004-04:00

Dear me. I've said nothing interesting in a while. Perhaps ever. Um...I shall now attempt to list the things that have occupied my brainspace for the past few weeks:

*vacations
*hiking
*nature
*torture
*politics
*Russell Crowe
*Anna Karenina (Yes! I am reading a Russian novel, and I am enjoying it!)
*cataloging
*Charles Dickens
*SPRING
*children and child-rearing
*singing (Starting to miss it)
*the future
*aging/dying/depressing things
*I, Claudius (Mostly the identification of random British actors whilst watching crazy Roman people do crazy, crazy things. Oh, Caligula.)
*thinking more deeply about a subject before I mouth off about it (You know, actually using my brain?)
*clothes/style
*fencing, my effing hip, and physical fitness in general

...Hmm. Maybe some time soon I'll have something that I feel is worthy to say, again. Maybe. I mean, just look at that list. It is fraught with potential subjects for deep and meaningful blogging, isn't it? Anything in particular I should pontificate upon, theoretic readers?

The Ugly Truth

2009-04-12T12:20:00.002-04:00

I totally want to see this movie. I generally enjoy rom-coms, and my love for Gerard Butler is well-documented ... although I kind of can't stand Katherine Heigl. What is interesting to me about this movie, though, is that so far we've got two trailers, and I don't think that fully follow the usual formula for rom-com trailers. Boy and girl meet. Boy and girl hate each other. Boy/Girl is interested in other Boy/Girl. Ultimately, Boy/Girl and second Boy/Girl doesn't work out, and original Boy/Girl realize that they're perfect for each other. And usually the trailer reflects that. In this case, however, we get only marginal hints that maaaybe Boy is realizing he really likes Girl, but no indication that Girl is interested in Boy, or that second Boy is going to turn out to be a total jerk. Now, I don't doubt for a second that this is how the movie is actually going to play out, but I think it's interesting that they're withholding this in the trailers. Brilliant marketing, really, since you might go see it just to see if they actually do something different.

Or maybe I'm just continually looking for excuses to go see it. Y'know, aside from the fact that Gerard Butler is totally going to be my second husband. ;)

**Don't feel like posting links to trailers. You can look 'em up if you're interested.

An open letter

2009-02-23T09:57:00.005-05:00

To teenaged girls (yes, I know, there are none reading this blog) everywhere:

See this?

That's Dev Patel. He was in that movie, Slumdog Millionaire. No, not the one about emo vampires ... the one that won 8 Oscars last night. Yeah. Anyway. Look at him! He is young, and adorable, and British, but with a nice exotic twist. He looks clean and alert and seems to be unfailingly polite. So cute! So charming! I really fail to understand why you are not all screaming and swooning over him instead of

Robert Pattinson, who says really weird things in interviews, seems to have an aversion to even the most rudimentary of hair styling tools or products, and really just looks stoned most of the time.

Can we work on that? Seriously, I think you'll thank me as time goes by and you get a little older. Kthxbye!

Crosswords + Chickweed = win.

2009-01-23T10:41:00.004-05:00

Awesome. Means "to kiss", btw. I'm seriously going to be using that word whenever possible.

GOOP

2009-01-22T09:54:00.002-05:00

Hi. My name is Samantha, and I like GOOP. Just in case there's anyone reading this (who doesn't know what GOOP is), I will explain. GOOP is, more or less, the blog of Gwyneth Paltrow, in which she offers recommendations on the following: Food to make, places to go, things to see and do, things to buy, and ways to make one's life better. The website has many detractors, even in terms of the bigger guns, like E!Online, which never misses an opportunity to mock this website. But you know what? I think it's pretty cool. I get all the snarky comments about how she thinks she's the next Martha Stewart, or she seems to forget that she is a ridiculously rich person and therefore has different taste/ideas about what is affordable than us average Janes, or that it's just so holier-than-thou. And to those comments, I choose to reply with an idea that is becoming really important to me as I grow: Learn from whatever source you can. Are her recommendations sometimes expensive, or snooty, or just plain ridiculous (I'm looking at you, detox diets)? Sure. But sometimes, they're good! I like her notion of layering outfits by starting with basic pieces that can be added to depending on the occasion. We actually tried two of her recipes for our Thanksgiving dinner, and they were really good! And she's got a workout video posted that was done by her trainer, who also trains Madonna. Now, sure, this trainer probably charges astronomically for a private session, but who am I to look askance at a free workout video? Might I remind you that both Gwyneth Paltrow and Madonna, while sometimes scarily so in the latter's case, are both in really good shape?
I'm not saying that anyone should follow Gwyneth Paltrow's (or anyone else's, for that matter) ideas about how to live life wholly or to the letter ... you should come up with your own. But the best way I know to do that is to borrow shamelessly from other people when you think they have a good idea. And so, I will avoid detox diets and overpriced Christmas gifts, but I will enjoy the use of black leggings as a basis for getting dressed in the morning, and roasted brussels sprouts and a really good salad dressing, and positive recommendation on a great sushi restaurant in NYC, and glowing praise for a book I've been meaning to read, and I think my life will be better for it. If others choose to miss out because they think they're being condescended to by Pepper Potts, well, that's their choice. Me, I'll take tips on life from wherever they come. Even if the name "GOOP" is pretty freakin' stupid.

Social networking?

2009-01-10T19:02:00.002-05:00

You know, Facebook is kind of sad when you were never the popular kid. There are lots of people from my past that I remember fondly, and it's always exciting to find them on some website, to see what they've been up to and what they look like now. I'm happy to see them. I like to talk to them, hear how they've been, and all of that. And that's great.
I've come to realize, however, that such "relationships" leave me cold. This is unsurprising, and probably not unusual, but I think it goes deeper than that. Because I spend (too much) time on things like Facebook, I see the interactions that my friends have with their friends. They're all so excited to see each other! And they go into immediate reminiscences, and they often call each other to catch up, and maybe even meet up. And I guess what I realize is that I have always been on the periphery.
I was never the popular kid. In grade school, I was the antithesis of the popular kid. In high school and college, I thought that I fit in more, but I guess people still held me at arm's length. There are no "Hey, remember when"s and "I was just talking about you"s and "Call me, let's get together"s. There are certainly practical reasons for that, most notably the fact that I live nowhere near most of these people. And I admit that there are some people I never knew that well due to my own disinterest or some other reason. But ultimately ... I think of the quote from the film version of Sense & Sensibility when Willoughby says of Brandon that he is the sort of person that "everyone thinks highly of, but no-one remembers to talk to".
I think that I am just a person that people encountered on the way rather than someone they remember fondly or wish to reconnect with. I'm just that girl, the little one that everyone picked on, or the one who dressed funny and didn't wear shoes, or the one who showed up at lots of fencing tournaments. I suppose that I shouldn't complain, as there are most likely a whole slew of people that nobody remembers at all. But it makes me sad. What people don't realize about me is that all I have ever wanted in my life was to fit in somewhere. Be normal. One of them. But I was somehow always the unusual one, and the more people treated me as such, the more I suppose it came true.
There's worse, though, and that's the people that I realize want largely nothing to do with me, and some who I know don't even like me anymore. It makes me realize that I must've done something, or been someone that they didn't like or that made them unhappy. I suppose some have just moved on and don't care one way or the other.
At the bottom of it, though, is that same little girl who never uttered a word and never cried, but who only wanted to be included and loved. I still try so hard, maybe too hard, to make people happy or make them like me or just make them feel good because I like making people feel happy. I do it freely, yes; but doesn't every one want something in return? I remind myself to look for that love and acceptance from the few close friends I do have, from my husband, from myself ... but I don't think I ever got over not having it from the people I grew up with, and I wonder if I will ever stop looking for it now.

Words looked up today:

2009-01-01T20:03:00.001-05:00

apostasy
haem
meson

This edification brought to you by leisure activities such as "Word Challenge" on Facebook and The Audacity of Hope by Barack Obama.

Be excellent

2009-01-01T20:01:00.003-05:00

My "New Year's Resolution" can be summed up in this way : I'm going to be nice to myself. To elaborate only slightly, my hope is to stop and think about my actions, and whether or not they're going to enhance/make better, or be harmful. Reasonably appropriate on the heels of a teensy bit of celebratory excess ringing in the New Year. Let the improvement begin?

Final thought of 2008

2008-12-20T17:03:00.004-05:00

Alright, it's really going to be two thoughts, mostly because I don't want to seem completely shallow.

1. I'm just starting The Audacity of Hope, and I've listened with interest to the preparation that President-Elect Obama has been making (yay, science!), and man, I am glad I voted for that guy.

2. I am totally, utterly annoyed that Heath Ledger is stealing all of Robert Downey, Jr.'s thunder this year just because he died. There. I said it. The Dark Knight was a trainwreck of a movie, nothing compared to Iron Man, and Downey, Jr.'s performance in Tropic Thunder blows The Joker out of the water. I am not looking forward to award season and seeing who the hell ever gets to go up and accept awards snivel over and over again about Heath Ledger while RDJ just sits there and looks like a hot, hot guy who fixed his shit instead of shuffling off the mortal coil. So there.

Awesome book of the day

2008-12-17T11:53:00.002-05:00

Joyce, James, 1882-1941
Finnegans wake / by James Joyce
London : Faber and Faber ; New York : Viking, 1939

Limited first edition. 425 copies, numbered and signed. I think what gets me is holding such a book, maybe taking it in hand to write the call number in the back, and thinking "James Joyce held this book in a very similar manner, almost 70 years ago." It's not the 70 years that's so impressive in this case, but rather the James freaking Joyce part.

This is when I really love my job.

War economy?

2008-12-17T08:56:00.002-05:00

I've just finished reading Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States, which might be my biggest accomplishment in 2008. I've actually been "reading" it for a couple of years now, half a chapter at a time, usually after I'd read another entire book or two. About a month ago I decided that enough was enough, and I was going to just finish the bloody thing already. There was quite a feeling of excitement upon finishing, let me tell you. I might have "raar"ed and thrown the book down (gently, of course). I'm not telling. But anyway, I had a point to make here.

One of the things that Zinn focuses quite a lot on is the way in which the US government, quite often, chooses to control society and the economy by engaging in wars. He makes his point quite clearly, and I started to think about how, in my memory, that's been true, what with the Bushes and the Middle East. I've also been thinking about how (if at all) the Obama presidency will differ from the way the government has been operating for a really long time. Obama does not fall into the standard mold, and so even if he represents the upper classes in his personal situation in life, he's still outside of that white, Anglo-Saxon (to coin Zinn's description of the presidency in general) box. Back to the war economy idea ... at one point in reading I chortled to the husband that at least with the way things are now, Obama was unlikely to fall back on that sort of operation. However, I'm rethinking that. Is it possible that we will just pull out of Iraq and jump right into Afghanistan? I guess what I am not sure about (being, you know, in no way qualified to talk about this sort of thing) is whether or not the "war economy strategy" will even work at this point, seeing as we're already knee-deep in such nonsense and it's certainly not doing anything for the economy right now.

I guess what I'm getting at is just that I hope the mold is good and broken. I hope that Obama is different enough to shake things up, and I hope that the system has reached the point where it no longer functions, and we need a new system. Fingers crossed, eh?

This is what I get for listening to NPR on the way to work...sometimes it's worth it, though, if only to hear Steve Inskeep say "SuperPoke!"

Sexy.

2008-12-10T09:04:00.001-05:00

There is no point to this post other than to declare that I think the song "Come On Get Higher" by Matt Nathanson is damn sexy. Even if he himself is not particularly.

Yes? No?

To be read:

2008-12-05T10:54:00.000-05:00

"Ours is essentially a tragic age, so we refuse to take it tragically. The cataclysm has happened, we are among the ruins, we start to build up new little habitats, to have new little hopes. It is rather hard work: there is now no smooth road into the future: but we go round, or scramble over the obstacles. We've got to live, no matter how many skies have fallen."

~First paragraph of Lady Chatterley's Lover by D.H. Lawrence.

The first American edition* is sitting just to the left of me, waiting to be cataloged. That first paragraph is fabulous. Why haven't I read this yet?

*Fine, so it's not the first Am. edition, but rather a reprint claiming to be such. Not that it matters, but I feel the need to truthfully represent the collection.

Meme? Here?

2008-12-03T14:58:00.000-05:00

1. What's your name?
Samantha. What's yours?

2. What is your favorite thing to wear?
Black.

3. Last thing you ate?
Lunch.

4. One place you will NEVER eat?
I tend to avoid McDonald's, but try to never say never.

5. I say 'shotgun,' you say:
Wedding?

6. Last person you hugged?
Andrew.

7. Does anyone you know wanna date you?
I don't know. I hope so. It's good for my ego.

8. Would you date anyone you met online?
I think I have...

9. Name something you like about your physical self:
I like my muscles.

10. The last place you went out to dinner?
Desert Moon Cafe.

11. Who is your best friend?
My husband.

12. What time of the day is it?
2:45 pm.

13. Who/What made you angry today?
Hearing Saxby Chambliss' victory speech on NPR. RAGE.

14. Baseball or football?
Baseball on TV, football live. Fencing FTW.

15. Ever gone skinny dipping?
I don't think so, actually.

16. Favorite type of food?
Sushi.

17. Favorite holiday:
Christmas.

18. Do you download music?
I did when I had a gift certificate to iTunes...

19. Do you care if your socks are dirty?
No.

20. Opinion of Chinese symbol tattoos?
I don't really care, but I will mock you if you are not fully aware of what your tattoo means.

21. Would you date the person who posted this?
No. She's definitely not my type. Lovely, but no.

22. Has anyone ever sung or played for you personally?
Yep.

23. Do you love anyone?
Lots of people.

24. Are colored contact lenses sexy?
That would depend on the color.

25. Have you ever bungee jumped?
No, but I think about it sometimes.

26. Have you ever gone white-water rafting?
Sort of. The rapids weren't very ... rapid-y, though.

27. Has anyone ten years older than you ever hit on you?
A few. Some successfully.

28. How many pets do you have?
2 kitties.

29. Have you met a real redneck?
I am from Georgia. You figure it out.

30. How is the weather right now?
Not cold enough.

31. What are you listening to right now?
Deep Blue Something.

32. What is your current favorite song?
"Busby Berkeley Dreams" by The Magnetic Fields.

33. What was the last movie you watched?
An Ideal Husband. It was fun!

34. Do you wear contacts?
Yes, quite.

35. Where was the last place you went besides your house?
Work, fencing.

36. What are you afraid of?
Spiders and death.

37. How many piercings have you had?
Three.

38. What further piercings do you want?
I keep saying I'll get an upper ear one...

39. What's one thing you've learned this year?
So many things that I can't think of just one.

40. What do you usually order from Starbucks?
Either a chai latte or hot tea.

41. What Magazines are you reading?
I subscribe to Self and Vegetarian Times.

42. Have you ever fired a gun:
Ick.

43. Are you missing someone?
Sure.

44. Favorite TV show?
Don't really have a favorite.

45. Do you have an obsession with WoW?
No, but I like The Guild.

46. Has anyone ever said you looked like a celeb?
Yes.

47. Which celeb do you look like?
I usually get Christina Ricci. I've also heard Winona Ryder, Demi Moore, Ally Sheedy, and Audrey Hepburn. No, seriously.

48. Who would you like to see right now?
Oh, you know, in a perfect world Robert Downey, Jr. would show up to do some research for a role...

49. Favorite movie of all time?
Singing in the Rain. I normally don't do favorites but I made an executive decision on this one.

50. Do you find yourself loved?
Yes.

51. Have you ever been caught doing something you weren't supposed to?
Of course.

52. Favorite smell?
Rain? I dunno.

53. Butter, plain, or salted popcorn?
Butter butter butter.

54. What's something that really bugs you?
Nearly everything at some point in time.

55. Do you like Michael Jackson?
I am ambivalent towards the Gloved One.

56. Taco Bell or Burger King?
Taco Bell, hands down.

57. What's your favorite perfume?
Anything "amber".

58. Favorite baseball team?
Go Twins!!

59. Ever call a 1-900 phone number?
I don't think so.

60. What's the longest time you've gone without sleep?
I've probably done about 24 hours.

61. Last time you went bowling?
Oh geez. In Bloomington? With Mari and Davin? Maybe?

62. Where is the weirdest place you have slept?
Please, I have enough trouble sleeping at home.

63. Who was your last phone call?
Probably Andrew. Or Ben.

64. Last time you were at work?
Currently.

65. What's the closest orange object to you?
My sweater's kind of orange...

Cut that out!

2008-12-03T13:52:00.000-05:00

injunction:
1. The act or an instance of enjoining: order,admonition
2. A writ granted by a court of equity whereby one is required to do or to refrain from doing a specified act.

Enjoining? To direct or impose by authoritative order or with urgent admonition.

Brought to you by Howard Zinn and the ever-present M-W.com.

Celebrity baby names: WTF?

2008-11-21T10:22:00.000-05:00

Do you think that there are out there in the world tons of ridiculous names, and that it is just because they are in the public eye that it seems as though celebrities come up with the craziest ones? I mean, maybe there's lots of other kids out there with names like Zuma and Apple and Pilot Inspektor and we just don't know about it because their parents aren't famous. Whatever the case, here's the newest crazy effing name, granted to a child who will, no doubt, get eyeliner and black nailpolish for Christmas and who will be beaten up because his dad is Pete Wentz, notwithstanding the fact that his name is Bronx Mowgli Wentz. Honestly, given the parents, we should have expected something insane, but wow. Just, wow.

Welcome to the world. Sorry, kid.

WOD: lucubrations

2008-11-20T15:13:00.000-05:00

Don't ask me. Shows up in Special Collections a fair amount, though. Fancy word from the 18th-19th centuries, having something to do with miscellaneous sort of writings.

Hit me, Merriam Webster: "laborious or intensive study ; also : the product of such study —usually used in plural."

You're on your own with pronunciation ... I'm still practicing.

Edification, courtesy of NPR

2008-11-19T09:06:00.000-05:00

This morning, there were a few things I decided to look up after hearing them discussed on NPR. I will say that again, I had sort of the gist of them, but wanted some clarification. Here we go!

pragmatic:According to Merriam Webster Online, if something is pragmatic, it is "relating to matters of fact or practical affairs often to the exclusion of intellectual or artistic matters : practical as opposed to idealistic." While I don't really like the bit about excluding intellectual matters, seeing as this was in reference to Obama's team of economic advisers, I'm mostly glad to hear it. Wasn't he supposedly going to be the idealism king? I don't really think that exclusion is valid in this particular instance, Obama being fairly intellectual. Anyway.

I've also decided that, since I'm attempting to pay closer attention to the workings of our governement, it's a really good time to learn some things since Obama is choosing his cabinet and filling all these positions, etc. To that end, the first nomination, apparently, is for the position of Attorney General, that going to one Eric Holder. "Attorney General" seems to be more or less a simple concept; my guess would be that what we're talking about here is kind of the head lawyer for a presidential administration. According to the website of the Department of Justice, "the Judiciary Act of 1789 created the Office of the Attorney General which evolved over the years into the head of the Department of Justice and chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government. The Attorney General represents the United States in legal matters generally and gives advice and opinions to the President and to the heads of the executive departments of the Government when so requested. In matters of exceptional gravity or importance the Attorney General appears in person before the Supreme Court. Since the 1870 Act that established the Department of Justice as an executive department of the government of the United States, the Attorney General has guided the world's largest law office and the central agency for enforcement of federal laws." So that's what he does. For extra edification, the mission statement of the Department of Justice is "to enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law; to ensure public safety against threats foreign and domestic; to provide federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime; to seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior; and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans." I guess the only thing that confuses me a little here is the bit about being the "chief law enforcement officer", which just makes the AG sound like a policeman. I suppose, though, that since law enforcement does fall to the Judicial branch of government (as opposed to the other two) that it's all the same, really. It's just the use of the term "officer" that throws me, I think.

Kindly do not make fun of me - I was never a good student, and the last time I studied government would have been 10 years ago, so there. I'm doing well to remember what little I do. At any rate, it's never too late to learn things, right? [Right.]

Personal Word of the Day

2008-11-14T16:29:00.000-05:00

Upon encountering a word for which I do not know the definition, I shall look it up and post my findings here. To wit, a short story, by Walter de la Mare, entitled "The Froward Child". Froward is a word that I've often read, and I more or less understand in the context that it means "difficult", but my curiosity was piqued, regardless. Merriam-Webster Online says: habitually disposed to disobedience and opposition.

That sounds much grander than "difficult", doesn't it?

Womanizer

2008-10-24T09:38:00.001-04:00

I appreciate a good pop song as much as the next kid, but the chorus of "Womanizer" is nothing more than two lines, "musically" stuttered. Can't Britney afford a better writing team? Also, the video is ... strangely inane. What's with the hair-tossing? "Look! The wigs stay on!" It mostly seems like an excuse for Britney to be artfully naked so we can see that she's got her body back. I'm sure that I'm just getting older, but seriously, pretty much any Madonna song/video prior to the year 2000 is better than this. Hell, Katy Perry is better than this.

Motherhood vs. Candidacy

2008-09-08T10:20:00.000-04:00

There was a story on NPR this morning about how many people (apparently mostly women) are taking issue with Sarah Palin's vice-president candidacy on the grounds that she ought to be more concerned about her children than her political career. I have to say that, despite being a fairly liberally-minded woman, and not a mother, I am inclined to agree. However, as in all things, I'm looking for perspective. Some of the women interviewed made the claim that she should be putting her children first, some women said that it was not the business of anyone else to judge her parenting skills, and the point was also made that, in general, the United States public is not concerning itself with whether or not Obama (or McCain, for that matter) ought to be putting the needs of his children first. Ah yes, the ever-present cry of sexism. I've got a couple of points I want to make here, in reverse order.

1. It's true that nobody is saying Barack Obama ought to be at home taking care of his kids. However, I would point out that, to the best of my knowledge, nobody said that about Hillary Clinton, either. I think that we have to look at each individual situation. It really does have a certain amount to do with the age of the children involved. Chelsea Clinton was already a teenager by the time her mother was running for the US Senate, never mind the presidency. Sarah Palin has five children, of which (assumedly) all but one still live at home, and one of which is not even a year old and has Downs' Syndrome. It is my personal belief that yes, her children still need a greater degree of parental involvement from both parents. Let's not even get into the discussion about Palin's eldest daughter, who obviously had need of parental guidance and didn't get it. I will also say that I've read some interviews with the Obamas in which they address their methods in raising their children, and they talked a lot about how they functioned as a team and about how they worked hard to be present and keep the lines of communication open with their kids. I admit that their presented ideas about children agree strongly with my own at this point, so I'm inclined to applaud them on that count, but it still just seemed very healthy to me.
2. I agree that it is not the place of anyone else to judge Palin (or anyone) on the manner in which she chooses to raise her kids. (Or what she names them ...wtf?)However, I think that we can take something away from the situation in terms of how she handles/looks at responsibility. Kids are the biggest responsibility anyone, adult or otherwise, can take on, and I think that more important than the issues of sexism involved is the question of whether or not a person has really given serious thought to how much other activity can go on at the same time as the attempts to maintain a family. Maybe she really is a superwoman who can balance it all, but I think that maybe I'd rather see someone opt out of an activity out of concern that it might be too much as opposed to taking it all on and waiting for "too much" to present itself.
3. Finally, yes. I do think that it is somewhat selfish for Palin to try for one of the biggest jobs in the country when she's got 4 kids at home, one with extra-special needs, and an imminent grandchild whose parents are still children themselves.What it is mostly about is those children: people who probably need Mrs. Palin more than the country does. What's that saying? "(Insert noun here) starts at home"? There are many ways in which a person can make this country/world a better place, and I think that raising good people is one of them. It's got nothing to do with sex to me. I have thought a fair amount about the effect that the election/presidency will have on Obama's kids, too. Maybe that's where my personal politics come in in addition to more information regarding the Obamas stance on how they're raising their kids. I've read a bit about that, so I feel as though they've addressed the issue. Perhaps we should give Palin time to sound off a bit more on the subject. I just get the feeling that it will be contradictory to what she stands for in a lot of other ways. I'm not sure you can really wave the "conservative hockey mom" flag while you're out there stumping and a nanny takes care of your kids. You're young, Mrs. Palin. Why not give it a few years, let your kids grow up, and then run for president?

Again, just my opinion. I admit to being highly liberal and thinking that Sarah Palin is only about two steps down from Ann Coulter as it is. I admit that I'm not a parent yet, so I don't fully know what I'm talking about. I'm planning on being a parent sooner rather than later, though, so I think about the topic a lot. Finally, I admit that my arguments aren't airtight. In typing them out I've seen plenty of holes, and I've questioned my own statements a time or two. Like I said, though, all I ask is perspective. Mine's not perfect either, but at least I'm trying to think about the issue rather than just throw out a black and white answer devoid of thought. We've got enough of that floating around these days, don't you think?

Blogging a blog

2008-07-30T08:57:00.001-04:00

One of my sites that gets checked every day is IMDb. They quite often have interesting links and news items that an entertainment culture nerd like myself gets a kick out of. Today, I'm particularly enjoying this link: Cinematical Seven: Children's Books That Need to be Filmed Immediately. I have to admit that I haven't read 3 of the 7 (perhaps incentive to correct that...), but Cinematical gets major points from me for mentioning two of my favorite books from my childhood; namely Ghosts I Have Been and Jackaroo. I would love to see either of those on the big screen, and I'm really going to have to go read them over again, now. There might be some book-buying in my future. Hrm.

Anyway. Check it out! You might find something to read...

Under the radar catablogging

2008-07-29T15:58:00.001-04:00

Alright, so I'm not officially blogging at work yet, but I'm just so excited by this particular item that I'm jumping the gun.
Mary : a fiction
[Wollstonecraft, Mary, 1759-1797]
London : Printed for J. Johnson, St. Paul's Church-Yard, MDCCLXXXVIII [1788]

This is the first edition of Mary Wollstonecraft's first and only novel before she went on to write A Vindication on the Rights of Women. Wikipedia calls this novel "an important development in the history of the novel because it helped shape an emerging feminist discourse." In checking the catalog for a Wollstonecraft bibliography, I came upon John Windle's Mary Wollstonecraft Godwin 1759-1797, which is a very nice and detailed bibliography, complete with transcriptions, collational formulas, and title-page facsimiles. Our copy is, sadly lacking the half-title, which Windle says is "required", but it does have the manuscript "correction" on page 178. I'm not positive whether or not a copy without the half-title is of a different edition, etc. but it seems as though the manuscript point would still indicate the first edition. Either way, I think this is pretty sweet, so sue me.

Random rare book revelations

2008-07-23T11:36:00.000-04:00

So, post-RBS, I have (mostly unsurpisingly) lost momentum, but seem to have settled into what I think is an upward climb in terms of cataloging. Writing a policy is on hold because there's just too much prior information to be slogged through. I've had occasion to get my hands on some leftover 16th century items in the Dewey collection, so attempts are being made to get those cataloged in proper(ish) DCRMB format. Last week I felt as though I'd learned just enough to be dangerous -- this week I have felt quite inadequate, but it's getting better. I'm refreshing things learned in grad school, putting into practice things learned at RBS, and I think I'm starting to churn out some reasonably pretty records. I've learned that truly, most collational formulae are not that complex, that it's really fun/exciting to correctly identify printers' devices, and that 16th century French printers often used "lz" as a substitute for "k". I'm quite getting the hang of the whole "u/v" problem, but I must say that even when you know you're transcribing correctly, it's really frustrating to write down something as a "u" when in modern terms it would be a "v". And boy, do I ever need to learn Latin. I sort of know what words ought to look like, so I can usually tell what's missing with contractions, but it'd be nice to know what the words mean.

All in all, I guess I am feeling much more comfortable and confident about this gig, and that's worth a lot. Now then, this here book is not gonna collate itself. Once more into the fray...

Oh. I meant to make a note of the things that are still problematic. I am still very confused by 240s and 246s, still afraid of describing bindings, and don't quite get the concept of the order of 500 notes. I'm trying to remember to plug in 752s in OCLC, but apparently they don't transfer out. What I need to do is compile a list of the areas I'm doing and just make sure that my records go down the checklist. Hmm.

Purposefully vague

2008-07-17T14:44:00.001-04:00

Isn't it funny how in just the right set of circumstances, some action from your past that you've never really questioned suddenly seems other than what it was? What's that Meatloaf song? "Objects in the Rear View Mirror May Appear Closer Than They Are". As though looking backwards suddenly makes one wistful, makes the past rosy, makes us forget what we really thought/felt and unconsciously remember it differently. Can't go back but wouldn't even if you could, so what's the difference?

How ridiculous.

Briefly

2008-07-12T09:48:00.000-04:00

A few words to remind myself that I (might) have a lot to say and (definitely) have a lot to do following my experience at Rare Book School. Of first order, though, is actually getting home again, so signing off from hotel a la Charlottesville. Miles to go before I sleep...

Tall order

2008-06-11T13:38:00.001-04:00

Ever been to freewillastrology.com? Here's mine for the day.

LEO:
ButlersGuild.com named Mr. Ravi Shankar as its Butler of the Year. Serving as Head Butler of the Qasr Al Sharq hotel in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, Shankar "always acts with complete integrity in everything he does." Your simple yet arduous assignment, Leo, is to be worthy of that same description. Are you up to the challenge? Can you be morally and ethically impeccable, between now and noon on June 18, in every single thing you do and say and think? Do you have the willpower to be absolutely free of hypocrisies, deceits, and manipulations? Can you refrain from speaking derisive or careless words about anyone, while at the same time being rigorously authentic and intent on telling the deepest truths?

Yikes. A worthy challenge, to be sure.

Turn of phrase

2008-06-11T10:40:00.000-04:00

There's a phrase that has long confused me, and when I came upon it last night in chapter 2 of The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay, I attempted to dissect it, and became even more confused than I was before. The phrase in question is "not unkindly". First of all, isn't that a double negative? Not + un? Secondly, it seems to be purposefully contradictory of itself. Let's break it down. First of all, the word kindly. Merriam Webster Online defines kindly as "of an agreeable or beneficial nature". So kindly = good. Moving on to unkindly, which is defined as "not kindly". Nice and succinct, there, MW. Unkindly = bad. Now, "not unkindly". Basically, what we're talking about here, at a very basic level, is not not kindly. It's so ...awkward. Why is it so often used?
The thing that really gets me, though, is how it's used in narrative. I think the reason it's so bloody confusing is that the context is never, ever clear. For example:

When the train at last crawled back into the Prague station early that evening, Josef remained in his seat, unable to move, until a passing conductor suggested, not unkindly, that the young gentleman had better get off.

That could so easily be taken either way. The conductor could be a nice guy and sympathetically tell the poor young man he needed to get off the train, OR he could just as easily be a total jerk and say "Beat it, ya bum." Obviously, given our new clarification of the phrase, the conductor is the former. But really, that double negative confuses us, and we're left unsettled, not entirely sure that we've read it right, and wondering if we're supposed to be feeling any more badly for poor Josef Kavalier than we already are.

Not, perhaps, the most enlightening blog post ever, but hey! Now that I've picked the whole thing apart, I understand it a lot more. And really, it's my blog. Isn't it all about me? I mean that not unkindly. ;)

Bernard Pivot/James Lipton Questionnaire

2008-05-07T14:28:00.000-04:00

1. What is your favorite word?
Renaissance.
2. What is your least favorite word?
Mature.
3. What turns you on?
Sarcasm.
4. What turns you off?
Tone-deafness.
5. What sound or noise do you love?
Rain and thunder.
6. What sound or noise do you hate?
Retching.
7. What is your favorite curseword?
I think that "fuck" needs no excuses, explanations, or embellishments.
8. What profession other than your own would you like to attempt?
Acting.
9. What profession would you not like to participate in?
Medicine.
10. If Heaven exists, what would you like to hear God say when you arrive at the Pearly Gates?
"Never mind that whole 'the road to hell' thing; your intentions were good."

Book nerdery: updated

2008-05-02T09:36:00.000-04:00

"What we have here is the top 106 books most often marked as "unread" by LibraryThing’s users. As in, they sit on the shelf to make you look smart or well-rounded. Bold the ones you've read, underline the ones you read for school, italicize the ones you started but didn't finish. Here's the twist: add (*) beside the ones you liked and would (or did) read again or recommend. Even if you read 'em for school in the first place."

I saw this list yesterday on one of the book nerd blogs I read, and it looked interesting...I have to admit to looking forward to seeing how many of these I have actually read. Plus, of course, I shall use it as a reference going forward. There are several on the list I've been meaning to get to...

The Aeneid
The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay*
American Gods*
Anansi Boys
Angela’s Ashes : a memoir
Angels & Demons
Anna Karenina
Atlas Shrugged* (Read multiple times.)
Beloved
The Blind Assassin
Brave New World
The Brothers Karamazov (I'll go back eventually.)
The Canterbury Tales
The Catcher in the Rye* (This is a favorite.)
Catch-22
A Clockwork Orange
Cloud Atlas
Collapse : how societies choose to fail or succeed
A Confederacy of Dunces
The Confusion
The Corrections
The Count of Monte Cristo* (One of the best books ever.)
Crime and Punishment
Cryptonomicon
The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time
David Copperfield
Don Quixote
Dracula* (Another fave.)
Dubliners*
Dune
Eats, Shoots & Leaves* (Everyone should read this.)
Emma
Foucault’s Pendulum
The Fountainhead (Not as good as Atlas.)
Frankenstein* (Classic!!)
Freakonomics : a rogue economist explores the hidden side of everything
The God of Small Things
The Grapes of Wrath
Gravity’s Rainbow
Great Expectations* (Awesome.)
Gulliver’s Travels (Didn't like it; ought to try again.)
Guns, Germs, and Steel: the fates of human societies
A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius
The Historian : a novel
The Hobbit* (Duh.)
The Hunchback of Notre Dame
The Iliad (Not as good as The Odyssey.)
In Cold Blood : a true account of a multiple murder and its consequences
The Inferno
Jane Eyre* (OMG Love.)
Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell* (Reading now!!)
The Kite Runner
Les Misérables
Life of Pi : a novel
Lolita
Love in the Time of Cholera
Madame Bovary
Mansfield Park
Memoirs of a Geisha
Middlemarch (Awesome.)
Middlesex
Mrs. Dalloway
The Mists of Avalon* (Over and over and over...)
Moby Dick
The Name of the Rose
Neverwhere
1984
Northanger Abbey
The Odyssey
Oliver Twist
The Once and Future King
One Hundred Years of Solitude
On the Road (Sorry, but this is boring.)
One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest
Oryx and Crake : a novel
A People’s History of the United States : 1492-present (Currently reading.)
Persuasion*
The Picture of Dorian Gray
The Poisonwood Bible : a novel
A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man (Quite confusing.)
Pride and Prejudice
The Prince
Quicksilver
Reading Lolita in Tehran : a memoir in books
The Satanic Verses
The Scarlet Letter
Sense and Sensibility
A Short History of Nearly Everything
The Silmarillion
Slaughterhouse-five
The Sound and the Fury
A Tale of Two Cities
Tess of the D’Urbervilles
The Time Traveler’s Wife
To the Lighthouse
Treasure Island
The Three Musketeers
Ulysses (I will go back again someday.)
The Unbearable Lightness of Being
Vanity Fair
War and Peace
Watership Down*
White Teeth
Wicked : the life and times of the wicked witch of the West
Wuthering Heights
Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance : an inquiry into values

So...how'd I do? 49? Almost half. Not bad! :)

For me to know, having found out -

2008-04-18T15:33:00.000-04:00

It may be good ... that romantic love should form the motive for a marriage, but it should be understood that the kind of love which will enable a marriage to remain happy and to fulfill its social purpose is not romantic, but is something more intimate, affectionate, and realistic.

~Bertrand Russell, Marriage and Morals

Bloody brilliant. Also,

Unhappiness is the ultimate form of self-indulgence.
~Tom Robbins

A favorite-

2008-04-07T14:54:00.000-04:00

The sea is calm to-night.
The tide is full, the moon lies fair
Upon the straits; on the French coast the light
Gleams and is gone; the cliffs of England stand;
Glimmering and vast, out in the tranquil bay.
Come to the window, sweet is the night-air!
Only, from the long line of spray
Where the sea meets the moon-blanched land,
Listen! you hear the grating roar
Of pebbles which the waves draw back, and fling,
At their return, up the high strand,
Begin, and cease, and then again begin,
With tremulous cadence slow, and bring
The eternal note of sadness in.

Sophocles long ago
Heard it on the Agaean, and it brought
Into his mind the turbid ebb and flow
Of human misery; we
Find also in the sound a thought,
Hearing it by this distant northern sea.

The Sea of Faith
Was once, too, at the full, and round earth's shore
Lay like the folds of a bright girdle furled.
But now I only hear
Its melancholy, long, withdrawing roar,
Retreating, to the breath
Of the night-wind, down the vast edges drear
And naked shingles of the world.

Ah, love, let us be true
To one another! for the world, which seems
To lie before us like a land of dreams,
So various, so beautiful, so new,
Hath really neither joy, nor love, nor light,
Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain;
And we are here as on a darkling plain
Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
Where ignorant armies clash by night.

~Dover Beach, Matthew Arnold

Breakthrough?

2008-04-02T10:35:00.000-04:00

So, last weekend I fenced in the North Atlantic Sectional Championships. Competitors were from various parts of NY, ME, RI, CT, MA and maybe a few other New England type spots. Vermont? Anyway, there were 50 competitors in Women's Epee - pretty strong event. I had what continues to seem to me a mind-bogglingly good day, and I finished in 3d place. I am WAY excited about this for many reasons, most importantly the fact that it's truly the best fencing I've done in a really long time - possibly ever. It was smart and well-executed. If I had fenced that way and not made it as far as the round of 4 I think I still would have been pretty stoked. To be able to say that I earned a medal, reconfirmed my C (THANK GOD), and qualified to fence Division IA at Nationals (even though I'm not going) is so much really tasty gravy. It's mostly nice to feel as if work and practice is starting to pay off, and maybe I'm going to climb off of my 4 year plateau sometime in the near future.

So, yay. :D