Drive

Title: Drive

Studio: Bold Films (2011)

Michael and I did a little something different for our joint post series last April and we're serving up a twist again this April. (side note re April: It's also our month for meeting up in person and having awesome good times at the LA Times Festival of Books... but more on that later.) For anyone new to this series, this is where we choose a book/movie pairing and I say a few words on the book and Michael says a few words on the movie. But as you'll quickly notice, this month Michael has the book and I'm taking the movie.

Click here for Michael's review of Drive by James Sallis at It Rains... You Get Wet

I don't review films often and I had lots of jumbled/random thoughts regarding the film so I'm going to do what I do whenever I can't seem to get myself organized for a review: borrow the format of that estimable Canadian blogger, Apprentice Writer. (I shamelessly rip this format off when needs must and AW is so kind as to not mind at all... I think;)

Premise: "A mysterious Hollywood stuntman, mechanic and getaway driver lands himself in trouble when he helps out his neighbour"
(you might recognize that as more shameless stealing - this time from IMDb)

Poster: Evokes atmosphere and tone of the film to perfection. Big thumbs up.

Title: Truth in advertising

What Works:
- The chase scenes. I'm pretty partial to car chases anyway but when they are done well it's such a treat and holy damn were they done well.
- Ryan Gosling. So many jokes were made about his lack of dialogue that I was actually pretty surprised he had as many lines as he did. I was expecting a lot of Acting and Making Serious Faces, etc due to all the jokes but it wasn't like that at all. He played a quiet character and he was quiet. It's nice to see understatement allowed to work its magic.
- Bryan Cranston. I can't figure out why I heard so much about Albert Brooks after this movie released but nothing about Cranston. He blew me away! I thought he was the best part of the movie (excepting the car chases) and he nailed that part. I mean, he fucking nailed it! Try to picture other folks acting this sort of role and you'll find that they either can't be truly pathetic and submissive (there's always that angry glare directed at someone's back or a posture that says they still have some fight in them) or that they are so pathetic and submissive that you hate them or laugh at them. Cranston pulled off the nearly impossible: he played a sad, pathetic loser and instead of despising him he made the audience want to cry for him. I rarely root for criminals even when they are the protag, but I wanted his racing scheme to work out so badly that the hardest thing in the movie for me to bear was his inevitable storyline.
- The direction of the violence. This is a graphically violent movie and I've rarely seen graphic violence done so well. This was not a movie that relied on physical traits (think bad teeth) or atmospheric conditions (think ominous music and dingy neighborhoods) to help the audience know when Bad Stuff was about to happen. This was a movie where a clean-cut, handsome guy with a climber's physique could stomp someone's head to a bloody pulp on a bright, sunshiney day. My compliments of the violence aside, you have been warned, the story follows violent people and the camera is not shy.

What Doesn't:
- Ironically, and excepting what I listed above, the direction. I am a firm believer that if you are not directing a stylistic movie (think Moulin Rouge, Kill Bill, From Dusk 'Til Dawn, etc) then I shouldn't notice the directing. The only time I didn't notice the directing was in the car chases and during a violent scene. That is where the director really got it right. Otherwise, I felt like he never wanted me to forget that he was Directing.
- Irene. What a toothless role. Carey Mulligan deserves better.
- Albert Brooks. I'm listing this specifically because I want it to annoy someone so s/he will explain to me exactly what was so great about him in this role. I thought he did a fine job but I didn't think the role presented much of a challenge. I'm ready to be convinced so Brooks backers please share!
- The Driver's motivation. Was it really just that he fell in love with a pretty girl? And why? We learn almost nothing about her, so is the sum total of her appeal her looks and beautiful smile? Was it the kid? My theory on this is spoilerish so highlight if interested: The ending scene and song made me think his other part-time job is helping people out when he takes a fancy to them. During the movie I was thinking his helping of Irene was a one-shot deal and that didn't make a lot of sense to me. But then that last scene made me think that perhaps this is not his first time acting the Semi-Good Samaritan. This is another one that I hope others will share their insight on.

Overall:
Kick-ass car chases, realistic violence, and solid acting make this a film worth watching even if it's not exactly your cup of tea. A few distracting mis-steps keep me from giving it an unqualified recommendation but I still think it's a movie that will send a lot of people home happy.


Don't forget to check out the book review! And here's my favorite quote to enjoy on your way out:

I don't have wheels [slight pause] on my car.

rating: 3 of 5 stars


Click here for an index of the joint post series

Alan Rickman Reel: Die Hard

 My household are big fans of Alan Rickman. As such, we've decided to review his films from start to finish. Using IMDb, that puts us starting with Die Hard (DIE HARD!!!!)

John McClane had other plans.

sgwordy: I’ve heard you claim that Alan Rickman plays the best action villain of all time in Die Hard. After another viewing do you still think so? Why?

Dr Musacha: Definitely. Hollywood tends to write only two types of villains right now, the crazy idiot that would get caught or killed by his own henchmen in no time, and the stone-faced underactor that never shows any emotion. Rickman’s Hans Gruber is brilliant and charismatic, he even cracks a few jokes early in the movie. But beneath the civil exterior there is a cold, calculating person that will not hesitate to use any means to get what he wants. It’s a well-rounded, terrifying package.

sgwordy: Agreed. He’s one of those villains that you know is going to actually shoot, not faff about until he loses control of the situation (exception being the end). It makes him scary and so much more enjoyable than most film baddies.

sgwordy: Would you say that’s because of Alan Rickman or how his character is written or both?

Dr Musacha: Both, the character is well written and credit should go to the writers.  But many of Rickman’s contemporaries (Nicholson, Hopper, etc.) would have resorted to chewing the scenery.

sgwordy: Interesting, would you say that has anything to do with his British accent?

Dr Musacha: [laughs] No, but I thought it was awesome when he faked an American accent.

sgwordy: Just as I thought Gruber’s stupid moment came at the end, the American accent bit was McClane’s stupid moment. His accent was disguised but not his voice.

Dr Musacha: This was Rickman’s feature film debut. Did this feel like someone making his debut?

sgwordy: Definitely not. There are so many throwaway villains whose names no one remembers but everyone knew who Alan Rickman was after this.

Dr Musacha: Do you think it’s more difficult to play a fleshed out villain or hero?

sgwordy: Hero definitely because villains almost always get more layers if they are well-written. Poorly written villains are cardboard cut-outs of stupid.

Dr Musacha: It’ll be interesting to compare his villainous turns to future heroic roles.

sgwordy: Do you sometimes wish that Gruber had lived so it could have been his series?

Dr Musacha: A well conceived villain is more important to the success of a story. You want a good hero so you [the audience] can relate but a great villain raises the stakes and gets the audience invested in the plot. Cartoonish or stupid villains undermine the tension. But no, I don’t wish he had lived because his death scene was so awesome. Plus then poor Alan Rickman might have had to be in that terrible fourth Die Hard movie, and I wouldn’t wish that on anybody.

sgwordy: I would add that a stupid villain undermines the hero because how impressed can you be with a hero who is fighting a stupid villain.

Dr Musacha: Die Hard is still considered a classic in the genre - why do you think it still resonates with people (besides Rickman and Willis)?

sgwordy: I would say because the action serves the plot, rather than vice versa. It’s not action with a plot superimposed.

Dr Musacha: I think you nailed it, and the pacing is key. The film starts with just enough background to get you interested in the characters, then meshes action with plot seamlessly the rest of the way. It’s not bunches of action interspersed with exposition of the villain detailing the plan.

sgwordy: Also, as you said above, a great villain makes a great movie. And McClane is fun, too. The script makes me cringe in parts but it’s also super awesome in parts. Additionally, I wouldn’t say it’s exactly a banner film for better opportunities for actors of color but it’s quite noticeable that being a person of color did not mean you were going to be the villain who bought it first or the good guy who gets to die serving the plot.

Dr Musacha: I’d add also that Holly is a great female character. Her part isn’t large but she’s smart, takes a leadership role, and isn’t sitting around waiting anymore than any person might have to do with a gun pointed at her head.

Summary:

Rate the movie on a scale of 1 to 10:

Dr Musacha – 9

sgwordy – 8

Was Rickman the best thing about this movie?

Dr Musacha – Tied with McClane

sgwordy – Tied with McClane

In the context of his body of work, on a scale of 1 to 10, how would you rate Rickman as Rickman?

Dr Musacha – 10

sgwordy – 8

Favorite Rickman quote from this movie?

Dr Musacha: I’m an exceptional thief, Mrs. McClane. And since I’ve moved up to kidnapping, I think you should be more polite.

sgwordy: We do it the hard way.

Die Hard, the cassette tapes, the computers, the hair!!! Good stuff, y’all!!!

The Big Sleep by Raymond Chandler

Title: The Big Sleep

Author: Raymond Chandler

Publisher: Knopf (1939)

 There are many releases/publishers for this novel. Mine was a UK version so I enjoyed a book filled with "tyres" and the like. I couldn't find a cover image so I took my own photo (featuring Hedgie and another book I read recently, and really liked) so that everyone could enjoy who I assume is supposed to be Carmen. In any case, I think Vintage's release is the easiest to get right now.


Michael and I didn't reach quite as far back as Austen's day this month but we're still kicking back with a classic. It's appropriate for us to visit one of the originals of the hard-boiled PI novels together because it was Michael who championed PI and mystery novels to me. In general, I prefer more modern authors when it comes to mysteries but it makes me feel high-brow and literary to visit those who blazed the trail. For anyone new to this series, this is where we choose a book/movie pairing and I say a few words on the book and Michael says a few words on the movie.

Click here for Michael's film review of The Big Sleep at It Rains... You Get Wet

Philip Marlowe is hired by General Sternwood to look into a blackmail case. Sternwood has two daughters who tend to get into scrapes now and again. Sternwood is being blackmailed for the gambling debts owed by one of his daughters. The General doesn't mention anything about a missing son-in-law but, in the course of the blackmail investigation, pretty much everyone else does. Investigating both becomes a priority for Marlowe in the course of this novel.

If I sound a little sinister as a parent, Mr. Marlow, it is because my hold on life is too slight to include any Victorian hypocrisy. I need not add that a man who indulges in parenthood for the first time at the age of fifty-four deserves all he gets.

General Sternwood utters these words at the very beginning of our tale in regards to his indifference to his daughters' behavior. This is all well and good but it's a shame he's thinking of this so egocentrically. Whether he thinks he's getting what he deserves does he stop to think of whether his daughters are getting what they deserve? I was so preoccupied with my disgust with him as a parent, and the resultant contemptuous humans he financed, that I had a hard time really caring what happened to anyone. I almost got the feeling that I was supposed to have some sort of sentimental respect for the General (I'm quite sure Marlowe did) but some old guy retaining a bit of frankness is not enough to elicit my admiration. Anyway, this is all I'll say about this because it would otherwise make for a long ranty post totally focused on this guy's real stupidity in not encouraging these women into some sort of occupation. I realize it was 1939 but rich people have never been subject to the same restrictions as others. For heaven's sake, they could have taken up sailing or something. Ok, ok, shutting up now and moving on to the book.

If he ever gets wise to where you were last night in the rain, he'll wipe you off the way a cheque raiser wipes a cheque.

Yeah, it was that kind of book with that kind of language. I liked it, and it especially works in the beginning when events are crackling along at a nice pace. But it also has this sort of language:

Go ------ yourself.

Literally! Our gentle eyes cannot be abused with harsh language so it's blanked out. Extreme violence, gay and racial slurs are A-ok but (oh my!) let's be sure to keep "fuck" out of this book. How funny! It also danced around the pornography so I was never quite sure how serious an extortion ring the bad guys had going. Anyone familiar with that era's naughty pics want to enlighten me?

They put their beaks in their drinks, gurgled swiftly and went back.

Like I said the book starts off pretty action-packed but then it lulls a bit after the set-up. There is a period of time when Marlowe gets approached about the case more often then he goes out to investigate it. But, as you know, where a PI goes death was there shortly before so it doesn't lull for long. The plot, dare I say, thickens and Marlowe becomes more and more suspicious of events that appear unrelated to the blackmail.

While I enjoyed the turns of the plot and the descriptive writing style, I was never immersed in the story. Marlowe wasn't off-putting but I found no particular reason to like him all that much. He had a nice sense of justice and loyalty but that's plain good business sense for a PI. Sternwood I took in immediate dislike (the above rant probably makes that obvious) and the daughters were used as plot devices. The rest of our cast of characters were run of the mill baddies or too briefly seen to be interesting. I find it very difficult to really enjoy a story if I don't have a character with whom I can empathize. It doesn't matter if it's a hero or a baddie, I just need someone who I can connect with emotionally or via a clear motive.

It's nice to explore the root of a genre by taking these historical reads but for my avid reading I know I'm more likely to seek out modern mystery writers. Where do you stand on the classics?

Don't forget to check out the film review! And here's my favorite quote to enjoy on your way out:

"Tsk, tsk," I said, not moving at all. "Such a lot of guns around town and so few brains."

rating: 2 of 5 stars


Click here for an index of the joint post series

*erm*

Back when I used to watch every movie that came out rather than just every movie trailer, back when I worked in a video store (pre-DVDs and everything!), back when I lived at the beach... oh wait, that's not right... anyway.... Back then, I took a fairly large amount of pride in giving good movie recommendations. If you would kindly share a few titles you liked and why, I was pretty sure I could get you out the door with something you'd like. My feedback was universally positive which either speaks to my success rate or the kindness of movie store patrons in not blaming me if it didn't work out.

My pride in recommendations has retired from the movie realm and moved into the book realm. I've always been a bookworm but I now have so many more people around me that read for pleasure. I guess in high school and college folks were just trying to get through the required reading. Or just weren't interested or who knows, but the point is, yay, more people I know are reading these days. So now I get a little information about the books a person likes and proceed to make recommendations. I have learned that this is not what everyone does. I have learned this the hard way.

What do you do when a friend recommends something and it's crap? I don't mean that you simply don't like it but that it's crap. Crap = poorly written, uses offensive stereotypes, relies on cliches rather than character development, etc. What do you say? I'm still searching for the appropriate way to discuss material that actually offends me but here's what I want to say:

You and I just discussed various titles and talked about why we liked them and you still thought this title would be acceptable to me? Why? WHY? And while we're at it, why doesn't the sucky writing bother you? Do you not care about character development? And, ok, maybe this is a "just for fun" title so then I have to ask: why aren't you offended at the egregious homophobia/sexism/racism? What is wrong with you????

Do you see why I am still formulating a better response?

Persuasion by Jane Austen

Title: Persuasion

Author: Jane Austen

Publisher: Penguin Classics (2003)

Originally published in 1817

My love of Austen is no big secret and Persuasion is even the one I thought of first when I made a short Keeper List (though I have them all obviously and in multiple formats, too:). However, I've never read this title with quite so critical an eye or with a mental comparison to the movie running through my mind. For this new experience I can thank Michael for agreeing to queue up what will be the third romance in our joint post series. For anyone new to the series, this is where we choose a book/movie pairing and I say a few words on the book and Michael says a few words on the movie.

Click here for Michael's film review of Persuasion at It Rains... You Get Wet

Anne Elliot is the middle daughter of a spendthrift and self-important English baron. Eight years before the events of the novel she gave in to family pressure (including pressure from family friend and surrogate mother Lady Russell) and broke her engagement to Captain Wentworth. At the time of the engagement, Wentworth was a mere Mr and not in possession of any significant assets. All this made him far below what the Elliots considered eligible for a daughter of the family.

Sir Walter Elliot's poor budgetary skills have forced the family to remove from their ancestral seat and take a home in Bath. Their new tenants are none other than Wentworth's sister and husband (the world of Austen is always a small one). Anne remains in the neighborhood with her younger sister's family or Lady Russell for several months. When Wentworth comes to visit his sister they are often in company together. It's awkward and, for Anne, often painful because she still loves him. When he begins to court one of the neighbors' daughters, Anne tries to resign herself to fully letting him go.

What first drew me to Austen back in my high school days was her biting wit. I read very, very few romances back then (in fact, Austen is the only romance writer I can remember reading) and it wasn't for the romance that I kept going back to Austen: it was the zingers. Austen's books are like onions (or parfaits, everybody likes parfaits): you can read them for the romance, you can read them for the accurate portrayal of life in Regency England, or you can read them for the awesome satire. She must have been wonderfully observant because you just couldn't make up the ridiculous things some of the characters do or say. And the little asides that make, with very English restraint, an observation perfectly clear are just delightful.

Lady Elliot had been an excellent woman, sensible and amiable; whose judgement and conduct, if they might be pardoned the youthful infatuation which made her Lady Elliot, had never required indulgence afterwards.

If it wasn't already obvious, how gently Austen tips the reader to Sir Walter's uselessness as a person. Austen also had such an eye for the realities of a genteel life. She was the daughter of a Reverend so not rich but still amongst a set of people who often had no occupation whatsoever. Doubly so since a woman's sphere was quite small and completely in the hands of a guardian or husband. She teases out how an idle life can lead to a ridiculous nature. Anne's younger sister is married with children but not at all comfortable with a life with too little to do which manifests in pettish illnesses and obnoxious behavior.

She could soon sit upright on the sofa, and began to hope she might be able to leave it by dinner-time. Then, forgetting to think of it, she was at the other end of the room, beautifying a nosegay; then, she ate her cold meat and then...

Austen must certainly have had a healthy appreciation for the ridiculous and Austen readers often do as well.

Anne always contemplated them as some of the happiest creatures of her acquaintance; but still, saved as we all are, by some comfortable feeling of superiority from wishing for the possibility of exchange, she would not have given up her own more elegant and cultivated mind for all their enjoyments...

The real circumstances of this pathetic piece of family history were, that the Musgroves had had the ill fortune of a very troublesome, hopeless son; and the good fortune to lose him before he reached his twentieth year...

But in the midst of these little asides, petty family dramas, and painfully close views of the limited options available to women at the time, there is always a very satisfying romance to thread it all together.

Alas! with all her reasoning, she found, that to retentive feelings eight years may be little more than nothing.

The perspective is a little scatter shot but always more from Anne's perspective than from Wentworth's. It's clear early on that Anne has never lost her love for Wentworth and, as the story progresses, it's also obvious that Wentworth still cares for Anne. But, in case you're curious, ditching your fiance because your family tells you to is not exactly received well by the ditchee. Wentworth is hurt and looking for excuses to keep distant from Anne. The Musgrove daughters offer plenty of opportunity for distraction.

What I admire in Anne is that she regrets the loss of a companion she held (and holds) so dear but she never regrets her decision. For all the ridiculousness of her family (and, truly, she's the only sane one of the bunch) her loyalty to her family is quite high. In light of this, she is convinced that a happy marriage would not have been hers were she to have married against her family's wishes at such a young age. Whether you agree or not with her sentiments, it's easy to understand why she made her decision. It's also easy to understand how, at the ripe old age of 28, she's gained some independence from the over-bearing influences of her youth. Her decisions now will be much more guided by her own desires (Wentworth having made his fortune doesn't hurt when it comes to family acceptance either).

The novel is rather somber in tone, both in the dispositions of the heroine and hero but also in their courtship. Fairly or unfairly, second chances rarely appear as romantic as first love and they both have legitimate challenges in living down what happened 8 years ago. Still, Austen won't leave you long without a laugh.

By this time the report of the accident had spread among the workmen and boatmen about the Cobb, and many were collected near them, to be useful if wanted, at any rate, to enjoy the sight of a dead young lady, nay, two dead young ladies, for it proved twice as fine as the first report.

(no one actually dies in the book:)

Obviously, I loves me some Austen! This is getting crazy long and I still have so many notes in the ol' Kindle. How about I leave with one last thing. Even in this, Austen's last novel, her style retains some of the hallmarks of stories read aloud for the family. She doesn't stealthily weave in back story or current events: she simply spells them out - as is expedient - at the beginning of the story when setting a scene.

Yet so miserably had he [Elliot heir] conducted himself, that though she was at this present time (summer of 1814) wearing black ribbons for his wife, she could not admit him to be worth thinking of again.

And that's a little bit how you feel during the story. You get a close view of someone's home life. You see the small disappointments and revel in the triumphs... You wonder how you can read one more paragraph about the stupid father or the tedious sister... But, then, you can't choose your relatives and when the sphere of your existence is limited the only stage you have is the one you were born into.


rating: 5 of 5 stars


Click here for an index of the joint post series

What the f$#k, People?

Teleflora* makes a commercial equating women to prostitutes** (and NBC willingly broadcasts it) but it's M.I.A. making an immature and crude gesture (which a lot of people probably missed) during the Super Bowl halftime show that gets all the news?

What the fuck, People?

* I refuse to link to their site or the offending commercial. I don't want the interbots to give them any positive feedback.

** Come to think of it, using the word prostitute here is probably an insult to prostitutes. At least they are self-employed.

Linky Love

Need a laugh? Click here.

(hat tip: Sum of Me)

The Maltese Falcon by Dashiell Hammett

Title: The Maltese Falcon

Author: Dashiell Hammett

Publisher: Various, originally serialized in the magazine Black Mask (1930)

Michael and I have emerged from The Slide and, with 2012 well under way, it's time to kick-start the joint post series wherein I review a novel and Michael reviews its movie adaptation. Our little project began way back (*grin*) in May of 2010 and has been one of the unexpected joys of my blogging habit. My reading life has been enriched by our exchanges, which is something every avid reader appreciates. Plus, I can now boast of having acquired the skills needed for audiobooks. I remain a neophyte but my training moves along nicely.

The year did not begin with rainbows and kittens and confetti in sgwordy's circle of existence so it was a relief that we went with a title I had already read and seen (great suggestion, Michael!). And, as luck would have it, I'd already posted about this book. Since I'm going to do the copy/paste deal (with minor editing for clarity's sake) I thought I would at least spice things up by including some informative links for anyone not familiar with Dashiell Hammett or this classic private eye novel.  The first and most important link, though, is:

Click here for Michael's movie review of The Maltese Falcon

I found this bio to be thorough and interesting. From the same website, some info on the book. This bio [ETA: no longer exists] is a little shorter if you're in a hurry. This link has a list of, I think, Hammett's short stories and then various analyses/comments on his plots and novels. And now, for my two cents.

[This review's original post]

It very well could be that I had a This Is Spinal Tap experience with Hammett's The Maltese Falcon. After a couple Behind the Music marathons the brilliance of This is Spinal Tap is slightly overshadowed by the real thing. Of course I laughed and enjoyed it (seriously, how can you not laugh at the tiny bread? don't remember the tiny bread? click here) but I obviously didn't see it at the right time. We've all experienced this, right? You were so excited but then it turns out you saw/read something after the hype or after the right age has completely passed you by? Well, anyway, this might be the case with me and this book. But how about a synopsis first...

San Francisco PI, Sam Spade, is hired by Brigid O'Shaughnessy to help reunite her with her sister. Brigid is pretty sure her sister is kickin' it with a bad man and she'd like help getting her sister away from him. This is all lies, of course, and after the death of his partner Spade becomes embroiled in recovering a stolen statue (see title). Just who stole the statue and who is its rightful owner depends entirely on who is telling the story.

I have to say right up front that my favorite thing about this book was that it was in the 3rd person. My little heart just pitter pattered with love and appreciation when I saw that. It's not that I mind 1st person that much but that my recent mystery/crime/thrillers had mostly been 1st person and I was getting sick of that perspective. So huzzah and hooray for a different perspective whilst solving a mystery. Irrelevant side note: I felt the book had no rhythm. This might seem an odd statement but as a speed reader I'm extremely sensitive to rhythm in books. No rhythm = very difficult to speed read. What I can't say for sure is whether I need the rhythm to fit my brain or if books simply have natural rhythms that I pick up on. It may be a little of both, though, because often enough I come by books (most recently Mrs. Dalloway [Woolf]) and The Mystic Arts of Erasing All Signs of Death [Huston]) that take me 3-4 chapters to find their rhythm. Only after I've found it, am I able to speed read (note: I don't always speed read but I'm irrationally put out if the option is taken away:). Anyway, noticing this rhythm thing got me to thinking about what exactly might remove rhythm from a book and my best guess for this book is that it was due to the odd way in which Hammett described action.

Hammett doesn't exactly take short cuts when describing action. In fact, I'm hard pressed to recall if the word "punch" was ever used, though certainly several punches were thrown. He has a very distinct style in that he takes you practically step-by-step through the action. A condensed example:

Spade pushed Cairo gently aside and drove his left fist against the boy's chin. The boy's head snapped back as far as it could while his arms were held, and then came forward...Spade drove his right fist against the boy's chin. Cairo dropped the boy's arm, letting him collapse against Gutman's great round belly. Cairo sprang at Spade, clawing at his face with the curved stiff fingers of both hands. Spade blew his breath out and pushed the Levantine away...Spade stopped him with both palms held out on long rigid arms against his face.

There's nothing at all wrong with the style but much of the info listed I can perfectly imagine on my own and, frankly, would assume: heads snapping when punched, stiff fingers when scratching, it would obviously take rigid arms to stop someone in that way, etc. Again, nothing wrong with it, it's just that, for me, it resulted in a lack of rhythm. And also, it gave the action a stop-motion quality. Since each step was detailed my brain imagined everything happening much slower than it would in reality.

I liked the twists and turns of the plot but felt it was a tad bogged down in the info-dumping dialogue used to explain it. Also [spoilerish: highlight if interested], why the fuck did Effie and Sam trust Brigid even a little bit. I spent the whole book just waiting for her crumbumness to become known. My favorite character was probably Gutman because he made me laugh and was surprisingly pragmatic. Speaking of characters/characterization I especially liked how it was established that Spade has no idea how to relate to women in a non-sexual manner. I preferred that to many of my experiences with leading men who inevitably end up in the sack with the leading lady because it was more to do with Spade's social adjustment (or lack thereof depending on perspective) than Leading Man Sees Leading Lady, Must Humpty Hump Right Damn Now. I will refrain from any other gender relation explorations as possibly is unfair to judge a book that is ~80 years old in this manner.

From these comments are you getting my whole This Is Spinal Tap experience thing?

I liked the book well enough though not so much that I will run right out and get more Hammett or even recommend him to anyone. I am interested in The Thin Man though so will probably look out for it sometime in the future. But again, no rushing from me. [editor's note: how true, over a year later and i still haven't read this]

There are a lot of great lines in the book and I'm going to leave you with my two faves:

Gutman: "...but we were talking then. This is actual money, genuine coin of the realm, sir. With a dollar of this you can buy more than with ten dollars of talk."

Spade: "That's the trick, from my side," he said, "to make my play strong enough that it ties you up, but yet not make you mad enough to bump me off against your better judgment."

rating: 3 of 5 stars


Click here for an index of the joint post series

Powder of Love by Summer Devon

(review format shamelessly ripped off from Apprentice Writer)

Title: Powder of Love

Author: Summer Devon

Publisher: Loose Id (2011)

Premise: An unexpected and exotic inheritance creates an unlikely partnership, and the sparks fly almost immediately.

Cover: Title - Oh my gosh! I love it! I am such a sucker for puns and I should be above being so tickled by this small bit of word play but I am not. Art - I prefer illustration to live models but the bonus here is that the cover didn't bother me and the models so often do. I like the period buildings in the back and the artfully arranged desktop. In any case, it's a tasteful cover and clearly a romance. Truth in advertising is always nice.

What works:
Rosalie and Gideon are extremely likable. I rooted for them both right away and their immediate attraction was something I believed. Walter cracked me up and, no matter how perverse his interests, I never really had it in me to dislike him. Plus, I enjoyed his teasing manner with Gideon, and because I didn't have Gideon's job I never had to be overly annoyed with him. Rosalie has a companion and she gets a romance story, too, which I loved because the whole scenario was as adorable as a basket of kittens.

It's funny. There were some moments when I was definitely giggling along with Rosalie:

...but then she recalled Mr. Dorsey, who'd obviously opened the box and overcome its influence. For a horrifying moment, she imagined him in an aroused state similar to this, but pushed the image out of her mind.

Trust me, after a scene with Mr. Dorsey you're going to be horrified, too, and laughing at Rosalie having to deal with this mental image.

Then there are the perceptive things that Rosalie will say:

"I am not prone to caring for the good opinions of others. It's such a restful thing to go along with one's own judgment and not seek the approval of others."

What doesn't:
The action/dialogue did not always feel as if it served the plot but that it served to get some more hanky panky going on. Now, I believe that is the point of books under this publisher but I would have liked it a bit more had the sequences been more of a result of actions of the characters rather than it feeling like the characters simply needed to move on to reach the next hanky panky.

I never once had any doubt that Rosalie and Gideon would get together. This might seem like a stupid comment because that is always the guarantee in a romance but, for me, the best stories have that moment of doubt. I don't mean That Thing that happens Just Before the End to keep our lovers apart right after it seems their HEA is on the horizon but a true moment where I think, "Oh shit! Is this not going to work out?"

Lastly, and this is nitpicky, there were a couple things that made the scientist in me go, "Wait a minute!" When Rosalie takes the powder to a researcher she wants to see his lab to ensure that he's well-equipped to work with it. She knows that simple inhalation is all that is needed for a reaction to occur (and this powder has quite the range and is speedy, too, in the air) but doesn't insist that he wear some kind of mask and is actually pretty close to it herself. Woops! The density of the powder also made me go, "Eh?" There's a point when 10 grams of powder is missing. My mind immediately imagines 10 grams of a powdery substance that is light enough that it will immediately go airborne thus becoming an inhalation risk. My mind chose Agarose and 10 grams of that would probably cover a playing card and be about at least quarter of an inch high. but then, whoops, "the powder is dense, heavy. So that's probably about the size of, say, half a pea." Then my mind got to wondering if the doctor would have even used grams during this time period, New York 1880 (I know, picking nits... what can I say? When I start down a science path my mind gets going). A quick search tells me that the Metric Act of 1866 made it legal to use the metric system in the US but that the US didn't receive measurement standards until 1889. I can't really say for sure, though I'd really like to know as the history of scientific research is really interesting to me, but I'm inclined to think he wouldn't have used metric. Can anyone settle this for me?

Overall:
Easy to like characters and a story that fulfills the needs of a publisher leaning towards the erotic make this a very palatable read for anyone looking out for this type of romance. Bonus: it might be termed erotic light so it could be a "gateway" for anyone looking to explore erotic romances. Don't be intimidated by Loose Id's disclaimer... I can't find a link straight to it and I don't want to copy it out but this freaking awesome disclaimer includes "do not try any new sexual practice... without the guidance of an experienced practitioner." I wonder if they have any "experienced practitioners" to recommend to me. ;-)


This book kindly provided by the author
This blogger kindly asks the author to forgive her for taking a geologic age to post a review

More Linky Love

ETA: More on this topic.

Shannon Hale makes a very good point in this post.

To it, I would add that another limitation of only teaching classics is that the classics mentioned in the article (and almost all of the classics I was ever assigned to read) are entirely of Greek/Latin and European origin. It's a wide, wide world and more people might be interested in classics if the accepted list was more reflective of that wide world.

Also, could that guy be more snobbish? Jeez!

2011 Favorites

Favorite fiction: Three-way tie!
The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao by Junot Diaz
The Known World by Edward P. Jones
Shibumi by Trevanian

Favorite non-fiction: Three-way tie!
Dark Alliance by Gary Webb
The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks by Rebecca Skloot
Moneyball by Michael Lewis

Favorite mystery/thriller: Bury Me Deep by Megan Abbot
This literally came down to about five books because I practically stopped reading mystery/thrillers in Feb. This cannot be explained after a mys/thriller glom in 2010. I even meant to participate in a mystery reading challenge and, well, that didn't actually happen...

Favorite historical fiction: Roots by Alex Haley

Favorite fantasy: Assassin's Apprentice by Robin Hobb
This was also a sparse fantasy year.

Favorite Sci-fi: Dawn by Octavia E. Butler

Favorite Romance: Civil Contract by Georgette Heyer

Surprise hit: Reality is Broken by Jane McGonagel

Surprise blunder: Tie!
The Calculus Diaries by Jennifer Ouellete
Robopocalypse by Daniel H. Wilson

Favorite author discovered in 2011: Trevanian

Most re-read book first read in 2011: A couple Georgette Heyer books go here. They're short, cute, and comforting when I read a couple duds in a row or a book that leaves me emotionally wrung out.

Most recommended and recommendation actually taken: The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks

Most recommended books I wish people would have read but usually didn't:
The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao by Junot Diaz
Dark Alliance by Gary Webb
Reality is Broken by Jane McGonagel

And since I do occasionally do something other than read...

Movies:
Favorite - Brokeback Mountain*
Surprise hit - Love and Other Drugs
Surprise blunder - 30 Minutes or Less and Source Code
*I know this is sort of cheating but I didn't watch it until 2011 so it was new to me. Also, I don't think I saw anything in 2011 that I was truly excited about
(I do actually watch films that do not star Jake Gyllenhaal)

Video games:
Favorite - Resident Evil: 4 (Leon is back!)
Surprise hit - Brickbreaker (which made getting rid of my Blackberry so very sad)
Surprise blunder - Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood (but, of course, I still loved it even if I didn't love it - yeah, I can't explain it either)

Past Editions: 
2010 Favorites

Technical Topic - Narrative Non-fiction

This is a great interview of Rebecca Skloot with its main topic being structure. Very interesting stuff.

Things Fall Apart

IF by Rudyard Kipling

IF you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don't deal in lies,
Or being hated, don't give way to hating,
And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise:

If you can dream - and not make dreams your master;
If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;
If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build 'em up with worn-out tools:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,
And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: 'Hold on!'

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
' Or walk with Kings - nor lose the common touch,
if neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And - which is more - you'll be a Man, my son!



Of course I am a woman and a daughter but the sentiment remains. Whenever I don't feel grown up enough for life, this poem makes me feel better.

This New Year I have had reason to give thanks for my many blessings. Well, I have reason every year and every day but every once in a while something happens to bring home to me how lucky I am. It just happened to be around the holidays this year. I wish peace and happiness were as easy to dole out as words and blog posts.

I hope you, too, can give thanks for your blessings. And if, perhaps, you or someone you know is going through a hard time please accept the peace and happiness I am so desperately wanting to share with those that need it. Things can fall apart so quickly.

sgwordy says...

I am on a forum for people who love flashlights.


(so much love for the internet)

The 500th

My first post was on Jan 19, 2009 (and in it i complained about fb! jeez! you'd think in almost three years i could have rustled up some new topics). I thought in this, my 500th post, I would share the winding road that led me to start posting stuff on the internet.

I've enjoyed writing for as long as I remember. Even so, I didn't - and don't - consider myself a writer. I remember getting lots of encouragement about becoming a writer (this is when I was pretty young) and receiving lots of "she'll be a writer someday" comments. But I never really did want to be a writer. I'm just someone who likes to write. It might be that some see no distinction between these but I think of writers as the people who say "I have all these stories that have to be told" or "I can't stay sane if I don't write." I don't have any of these problems. I have lots of stories in my head but if they stay there it's not really a problem. If I go months without writing anything I don't really think much of it. But the fact remains that I quite enjoy writing and I always come back to it.

I've gone through phases of writing just about everything but I always come back to fiction and short non-fiction. They are my favorites. Anyway, because I've always enjoyed writing there was a time in which I was repeatedly gifted with journals. I think at one time "journaling" was quite the thing and if you enjoyed
writing of course you "journaled" because even people who didn't like writing kept journals. I never did. I could never keep up with it for more than a couple of days. I didn't have anything to say on most days. I didn't want to recount my day (boring!), list out my problems (not productive for my type of problem solving), or carry on about my joys. So I quietly collected a pile of blank journals and wrote stories and poetry on loose leaf, lined paper.

Now let's fast forward to my junior year of college. This is before the internet as we now know it, its ubiquity and its speed. It was still the type of thing you could choose not to participate in. (I'm just trying to paint a picture of the prevailing technological vibe at the time I was introduced to the Writer's Notebook.) So there I am entering my second semester after transferring to a new university and finding that my first couple years of over-achieving (I was much more ambitious in my youth:) had left me with credits to spare. I flipped through the class catalog (do they even print these anymore?) and signed up for the only writing class that fit into my schedule: Writing for Teachers. This was an upper-level English course for education majors. There were ~20 students and, except for me, every student was planning to teach high school English or similar. The class was devoted to teaching future teachers how to teach writing.

I was dubious when I saw the syllabus and assigned texts but the class turned out to be fantastic, its instructor a person I consider it to have been my great good fortune to know. (Plus I always liked how she was obviously intrigued and pleased to have a science major sign up for her class.) There is much I could say about that class but my focus here is on the Writer's Notebook and how it and Dr. Betsy Ervin changed my writing life.

The Writer's Notebook was tackled pretty much right out of the gate. Dr. Ervin wanted it to be a tool we used as her students and a tool we would share with our students one day (I use "we" loosely as I was not bound for an English classroom). The Writer's Notebook was to be a place that we used to record what we observed of the world around us. It was meant to make us more observant and sensitive to events and the people we encountered. She went out of her way to define all the ways in which it was NOT a journal and that we were not journaling (sgwordy breathed a big sigh of relief:). The Writer's Notebook was to be a companion to our writing not to us.

I was hooked from day one.

I still have all my Writer's Notebooks and I'm going to pull that first one out just to give an example of the types of things I chose to include in it.

-overheard statements around campus, at work, while traveling.
-descriptions of buildings
-a drawing of an overhead view of an island I had short-lived ideas of working on
-telephone numbers of friends, grocery lists (this of course being contraband but needs must)
-story ideas
-essay ideas
-character sketches
-portions of stuff I was writing (always nice to follow through on a scene or idea right when it comes to you)
-vocab lists

This first Writer's Notebook was a large sketch diary I happened to have at my house. I have since learned that my favorite thing to use as a Notebook is a 9x6in sketch diary because I often paste in postcards, ads, or newspaper articles and I don't like doing that on lined paper (who can explain it?) I also didn't want it to be so big that it was inconvenient to carry around.

One day, post WN, I was digging through an old box from high school and my freshman year of college. I found what could only be described as a Writer's Notebook. At the time of its use, I thought of it as a scrapbook but as I sifted through it then I realized it was a rough draft of what I would later learn to cultivate as a Writer's Notebook. Looking through it now I find the following:

-quotes from books, songs and movies I liked
-pictures of cute actors
-poetry (when I used to write poetry)
-lsu tigers stickers
-my favorite poems
-pictures of animals
-poem a friend wrote for me
-poetry written between my grandmother and uncle when he was in prison (some things are hard to say right out)
-ads and comics I liked
-concert tickets
-brilliant insights from my own brain (ha!)

Eventually the internet became what it is and much of what I was reading was online. The articles I found interesting were online. Funny videos would spark random thoughts. Discussion boards would have something interesting going on. These targets of my observation weren't exactly easy to put into a Writer's Notebook. And I was sometimes reading these thingums called blogs.

Eureka!!!!

I started a blog as a digital Writer's Notebook. For many months the only person who knew I was doing this was Dr Musacha. It was my own place to store random thoughts and link to things online that I found interesting. It was an easy place to hold videos and pics. I still kept (and keep) a Writer's Notebook but this blog served as its digital extension. Eventually I shared its web address with some of my friends who I discuss writing with. Then with some friends that I like to talk about books with and then just to some friends who are mildly curious as to what my brain can vomit up from time to time. Then, of course, there is the wonderful blogging community out there with whom one can become engaged on various topics. In one very important way this digital version is not like my paper version: it is public. I find that I always have in the back of my mind that what goes onto the internet, no matter how unimportant, is out there and so in the public domain. The digital portion of my Writer's Notebook is no longer strictly a Writer's Notebook but it has connected me to many other people who, like me, like to write. I find it a very satisfactory evolution of my Writer's Notebook and my writing life.

And so I find myself here in this place on the internet, still engaged in a writing life, in large part because of the encouragement and mentoring of Dr. Betsy Ervin. I went on to take her Essay Writing class the next semester (wherein I got to show off my Writer's Notebook and talk about how much I loved it as a tool) and get to know her a bit more. I would consider our relationship to have been mostly professional with a little bit of personal. I remember visiting her house just after her daughter was born and keeping in touch even when I wasn't in one of her classes - and even a bit after I graduated. I ran into her once by chance when I was back in Wilmington for a visit but by then we were not much in touch any longer. I can only assume she was serving as an excellent mentor for a new crop of students. I hope she knew what a positive effect she had on my life. I know I am not the only one to remember, with respect and gratitude, her generous and open manner as a teacher.

Thus endeth my 500th post, in memory and appreciation of Dr. Betsy Ervin

Rosemary's Baby by Ira Levin

Title: Rosemary's Baby

Author: Ira Levin

Publisher: Random House (1967)

As we head into our holiday break, Michael had the superb idea that we re-visit the horror genre for Halloween. This book was sitting in my Kindle just waiting for a read so I was happy to queue up this spooky title. Having an excuse to watch the movie again was also quite appealing. Speaking of the movie...

Click here for Michael's movie review of Rosemary's Baby

I think I first saw this movie when I was 12 and I had no idea it was based on a book. I remember being creeped out but I had no other memories of it (I'll leave comments re my new memories of it for Michael's blog). A couple weeks ago I was chatting with my neighbors about books (as we often do) and Ira Levin came up. Later that evening, I downloaded Rosemary's Baby on my Kindle. It wasn't until Michael suggested it for a joint post that I started it up. The Kindle edition included a very nice introduction that got me pretty excited about trying out my first Levin. Turns out, the book is very educational (see bullet points below (yeah, I geeked out:)).

**this review includes SPOILERS**

Rosemary and her douchebag partner husband are moving into their dream apartment. A close friend warns that the building has a seedy past but the happy couple aren't about to let the past or superstition ruin their domestic bliss. Even the nosy old couple down the hall isn't going to ruin the tedium fun of covering closet shelves with gingham contact paper. With hubby's career taking off and a baby on the way, the Woodhouses are ready to settle in for the time of their lives. It's at about this time that Rosemary's education begins.

1. Don't accept food from strangers

There are multiple instances of food from the neighbors being a terrible idea but if you eat a dessert with a weird "under taste," then get dizzy and have psycho dreams of the devil sexually assaulting you it's time to say no thanks.

2. Don't trust doctors who tell you not to read books

Levin does a wonderful job of interweaving the mundane with the ominous. One might eventually weary of Rosemary listing her domestic tasks but there's no doubt they underscore the small signs of mischief at play in the building. In addition to this, there is the constant feeling of Man Control over everything. In general, Rosemary tends to cede control to the men in her life but as the story progresses the oppression that results from her lack of independent thought made my skin crawl. How she can accept the judgements of a doctor who tells her not to read is beyond me. These aspects of the story, I think, were uniquely suited to the time when the book was published. They lend an extra layer of creepy that was, for me, even more affecting than the satanism.

3. Don't introduce your friends to your creepy neighbors

Rosemary has a father-figure/mentor who, like any rational human being, becomes suspicious of the creepy neighbors and the prenatal care Rosemary is getting. His suspicions are not lost on the neighbors and he conveniently falls into a coma shortly after meeting one of them. Unfortunately, Rosemary is not yet ready to accept all the signs of crazy around her.

4. Don't allow other people to make all your decisions

Rosemary's instincts are screaming at her that something is wrong and yet she continues to let the people around her brow beat her into doing what they want (admittedly, Satanists are probably pretty convincing, power of the Devil and all that).

5. Don't lose your independence

When things are going well Rosemary doesn't give much thought to how dependent she is on her husband. However, when the shit starts to hit the fan she doesn't have many options. I admired that she seemed to wake from her Do Whatever I'm Told stupor but she'd basically painted herself into a corner by the time she realized she needed to get out.

6. Don't marry self-involved, callous jerk-faces

Guy is an absolute piece of work. What a pig! Levin does a fantastic job with his character, though. The unraveling of Guy mirrors Rosemary's discovery of the Satan worshipers down the hall. There are hints early of Guy's creep factor (just as there are hints that all is not right with the neighbors) but they can be chalked up to contemporary social mores. As the story progresses it becomes more and more clear that Guy isn't exactly a catch. At first I had a really hard time accepting how quickly he sold out his family to the cult but it eventually becomes clear that all he brought to his marriage was a sense of humor and a giant ego. This naturally increases the sense of isolation Rosemary feels as she approaches the end of her pregnancy and heightens the feeling of impending doom for the reader. 


This certainly is not a perfect book but I was quickly absorbed by the pacing and plot. There are several layers of creepy that allow the reader to easily feel Rosemary's dread and I really enjoyed that (even if my teeth were often grinding because of Guy and the Man Control - I'm assuming that was intentional and it worked!). It's quite the page turner despite the fact that this is not even remotely action packed. That comes, as mentioned above, from Levin's admirable mingling of the everyday with the horrific.

rating: 4 of 5 stars


Click here for an index of the joint post series

Stuff I Wanted to Like

 Brief notes on stuff I really wanted to like but, ultimately, did not:


The Kingdom of Gods by N. K. Jemisin is the final installment in her Inheritance Trilogy. I am a big fan of the first two and so looked very much forward to the finale. I could not have been more predisposed to like this book so I was pretty sad to find myself checking out before I even hit the 100 page mark. If I did not already have a history of fangirling over this author I would not have finished it.

Cheers:
- Jemisin's deftness in writing believable and complicated relationships
- world building continuity and expansion

Jeers:
- the meandering nature of the plot
- the quickness of Sieh's obsession with the twins (actually much about Sieh's character did not work for me so I re-read the first two books to try to understand better why that was - I think I just had a completely different take on his character and where he would end up)
- how rushed the writing/editing job felt as compared to the first two (if you played a drinking game with the "i/she/he blinked" description in place of other ways to describe "surprise" you would get very drunk indeed)


Empress by Shan Sa is a book I came by at a book sale and picked up because I thought the cover was so beautiful. 

It's about China's only ruling empress (Tang Dynasty, 7th Century). I love historical fiction and I especially love to come by historical fiction not set in Britain or France.

Cheers:
- fantastic period rendering, places literally sprang to life for me
- she wrote what felt like very authentic philosophies/feelings for rulers and a ruling family, there was absolutely no apology for the ruthlessness needed to remain in power
- as I understand it, this is a different take on a much maligned woman and alternate views of history are important imo

Jeers:
- writing was just a bit too flowery for me (written originally in French, author is expat living in France)
- i got really bored when the focus moved away from the demands of ruling and seemed to hang out in the naval gazing arena


Red Riding Hood is a movie that looked like it had some potential. Unfortunately, it ended up being a great idea with extremely poor execution.

Cheers:
- a determined heroine who is comfortable in her mind and body
- supportive female characters. it's so rare that a heroine gets to have a mom, grandma and girlfriends who are positive and caring
- HUGE SPOILER, highlight if interested: her dad is the werewolf and super excited to pass on the family legacy to his eldest daughter. no moaning about how she should have been a son or making due with daughters. he loved his daughters and wanted to share his life with them. how refreshing.

Jeers:
- poor directing, lackluster script, lack of chemistry b/n actors
- offensive casting: i don't know the origins of red riding hood but this was pretty clearly set in The Days of Yore in n. europe. It makes a lot of sense then that the village is filled with caucasians and that the visiting priest is also caucasian. However, when the priest's werewolf fighting force is comprised almost entirely of people of African and Asian descent it is nonsensical and offensive.


The Secret Diaries of Miss Miranda Cheever by Julia Quinn is not a fun romp told through the enjoyable construct of diary entries. I am mentioning this book as a warning that it's not at all interesting. Just a heads up if it should be on your list. You won't miss anything by taking it off.