July 29, 2005
Book Review: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (Book 6) (2005)
|
|
While Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince may be shorter than Books 4 and 5, it seems like so much more happens throughout the course of the novel - this is directly attributable to the fact that there is never a dull or inactive moment in the story. Unlike the sprawling and many-layered Book 5, which contained numerous subplots, this book focuses on three main storylines. By choosing this tactic, Rowling is able to give sufficient weight to each story, thereby creating a tighter, more cohesive, and ultimately most satisfying story.
Understandably, one of the main focuses of this book is Lord Voldemort. This is a change from previous novels, when he was spoken of in hushed tones and rarely referred to by name. But times have changed, and the wizarding world is at war. Dumbledore, with brutal honesty and frankness, attempts to arm Harry against the inevitable upcoming battle by relating the history of how the brilliant Tom Riddle became the evil Lord Voldemort. This villainous history was sadly missing from all of the previous novels, and here it provides valuable information desperately needed for the reader to truly understand the enemy. I firmly believe that villains should be portrayed in one of two ways: either shrouded in mystery throughout a story such that they essentially leave it to the viewer's imagination to generate the evil, or described in such detail that we have no choice but to delve into the depths of their mind. Introducing a villain, giving him a name and a face, and then never giving him real depth is the death of many good books and films. Rowling takes the necessary steps to round out the character of Lord Voldemort beautifully. His is a fearsome and sad tale.
The second of the book's stories revolves around Malfoy. Any readers of the series could guess easily enough that, given his background and inevitable anger about the imprisonment of his father, mean-spirited and overly-ambitious Malfoy is bound for a life of serving evil. Throughout the book he is engaged in a sinister plot... or is he? Harry seems sure, but as we have seen before, he has jumped to improper conclusions to the detriment of himself and his peers. His schemes, combined with Harry's attempt to uncover them, provide the traditional conflict-setback-resolution section of the novel.
From the above summary, it should be clear that this is a dark book - much darker than any of its predecessors, and understandably so. As evil grows, it makes its presence felt in all ways that it can. It is as if a shadow lurks over all of the characters - even happy moments are tempered by the somber reminder of evil things going on outside the peaceful confines of Hogwarts. To some degree, this book reminds me of some of the techniques seen in Tolkien's Lord of the Rings trilogy - the terror grows to such unimaginable levels that it pervades everything. The situation grows bleak to the point that victory and salvation seem impossible. It is such a situation that we see forming in this book, and it is thrilling to behold.
Yet, in what is a complete change of pace, the final focus of the book is romance. In her choices of character development, Rowling made another smart and critical move: after five books, all of the main characters are sufficiently well-developed. While a lesser author might try to continue tweaking the personalities of the characters, Rowling is smart enough to let them grow naturally into the people she has molded them to be. The characters are all true to themselves, which is vitally important to an ongoing series. So it should be no surprise that, at this point in their lives, our heroes are flirty, jealous, and ultimately confused about their relationships with one another. They are much more aware of their sexuality and feelings and Rowling explores this angle fully, rather than suppressing it due to the overwhelming presence of darkness all around them. After all, to do that wouldn't be realistic, would it? Teenagers will be teenagers, whether they are studying for exams or fighting murderous wizards. They will love, hate, and covet one another, and we see plenty of this in Half-Blood Prince.
So why is this book so great? Well, taking for granted the sheer skill in the writing, and the aforementioned fact that it is a exciting read from cover to cover - it is the author's ability to generate a thrilling and wildly imaginative climax which pushes this book to a level beyond its predecessors. I will reveal no details about this, and will only say that it is definitely her best finale yet, and I guarantee it will have you captivated and unable to put the book down. Don't be surprised if you feel a mixture of awe, fear, wonder, and confusion, not to mention a few tears here and there. I ran the gamut of emotions in this book far more than any other. As far as I'm concerned, that is the hallmark of a classic novel.
So, who's the Half-Blood Prince, you ask? I don't know, pick up the book and find out for yourself! At the risk of gloating, I must say that I had it figured out from the very beginning. Despite this, there were many other things that kept me guessing throughout the book.
In retrospect, two things strike me now that I am finished with the book: I am quite worried and anxious about the finale; and I realize just how many things I still don't understand. Questions are answered, and new questions are raised, all culminating in a scene which sets the stage for what will be one of the most highly-anticipated books in literary history. With Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Rowling has written a phenomenal novel that will both satisfy your thirst for more Harry Potter, yet still leave you craving for more.
July 28, 2005
Triumphant
Ahh, the many and complicated duties of being a groomsman. Getting measured for a tux. Helping participate in the rehearsal dinner. Ushering guests at the wedding. Escorting bridesmaids down the aisle while everyone stares at you. Making toasts, helping cleanup/setup where necessary, etc. etc. etc...
But let's be honest: the real joy of being a groomsman is taking an advantage of every opportunity you get to make the groom look like an idiot.
Mission accomplished...
So as you might have guessed, I was in a wedding this past weekend. My friend, fraternity brother and co-worker Eric finally took the plunge. It was an important wedding for me, because it signified the last wedding (at least for the foreseeable future) for which I was part of the wedding party. Despite the fact that there are at least 3 or 4 more weddings this year to which I have been invited, I can finally kick back and not have to worry about anything. Just dress up, show up, and throw up. (last step optional)
It was a very classy wedding, and a great reception at the Atlanta National Golf Club. The reception started around 7 and people weren't really leaving in earnest till around midnight. That's when the ol' gorilla made his appearance. The only thing about the night that was less-than-ideal was the DJ. I mean, I guess the music choices he made were alright (though I can't say for sure; I was too busy talking and running errands to have paid attention), but boy was this guy a moron. He was your classic Mr. "I'm not cool, but I'm in a profession where most of my peers are cool, so I'm going to act cool and fail trying" sort of guy. I think he also had a bit of Little Man's Syndrome, since he couldn't have been much more than four foot tall. But his voice was completely corny and he wanted to be in control of everything. He really did his best to screw up our attempt to sing our fraternity Sweetheart song to Kari. Rather than just letting us do our thing, he kept trying to butt in, or do things "his way", which just isn't the way it works. However, all credit to everything else being wonderful to minimize the effect that Mr. Moron had on the proceedings. All-in-all it was a great night. Oh, and did I mention that we had filet for dinner? Mmmmmmmmmmm....
Funny story: Eric specifically made sure that I was seated at Table 9. Fans of the movie The Wedding Singer should get the reference:
Wedding Singer (Adam Sandler): You know, some of us will never, ever find true love... like, take for instance... me. And I'm pretty sure that guy right over there. And the lady with the sideburns. And basically everybody at Table 9. But the worst part of all is that me, fatty, sideburns lady, and the mutants over at Table 9 will never, ever find a way to better the situation, because apparently we have nothing to offer the opposite sex.Bride's Father: You are the worst wedding singer in the world, buddy!
Wedding Singer: Sir, one more outburst, I will strangle you with my microphone wire, do you understand me?
Mad props to Eric for that one...
So, I guess I can safely say that our impending move has changed status from "Off in the Near Future" to "On the Horizon". Total preparation thus far: 0%. It's weird, it doesn't feel like it's time to move. Maybe because I've only been here 8 months, and it's been a long time since I've moved after such a short transition. Even in college, where some people seem to move every other week, I only moved 4 times in 5 years, and three of those were just to different rooms in the same house. So it almost feels too soon. In addition, it probably doesn't help that I really like our apartment and have enjoyed our time here. If you're apartment hunting, I highly recommend AMLI. Our place is relatively new, nicely designed, clean, affordable, and supported by excellent customer service and maintenance crews. Despite all of this, moving into a home (even to rent) is a good transition step for me, enabling me to begin looking at houses in the somewhat-near-to-slightly-distant future. Now, if I could only motivate myself to start packing...
I finished the new Harry Potter last night. Amazing stuff. Expect the (spoiler-free) review to be on here soon. That reminds me: did you all hear about what happened on 99x last week? Apparently, either the day of or day after the release of the 6th book, one of the morning show folks decided to spoil the book's surprises. But they didn't just do it once: in what must be one of the dirtiest and crudest radio jokes that I know of, they basically kept repeating the information over and over, ensuring that tons of people would hear it. Had I been a listener of 99x (and I'm not), I wouldn't be anymore. Pranks are fun; humorless, spiteful tricks are not. Maybe someone will go Milton on them and burn down their building in the night...
Which reminds me: "Radio Morning-Show DJ" has to be one of the lowest forms of humanity on the planet. What good do they serve? All they do is take away time for music, which is what I want if I'm listening to an FM Radio music station. In the grand scheme of things, they just about as low as used-car salesmen and insurance bigwigs.
Last word of the day: Lance. As in Armstrong. You couldn't write fiction as good as this. An American athlete in a fringe sport, obscure even in his own country, finally draws mass attention not in victory, but in setback, having been diagnosed with cancer. With the eyes of the world upon him, he fights off not only the disease, but the entirety of his opposition for the better part of a decade, winning one of the most grueling competitions in the world. But he doesn't just win - he does it 7 times, 2 more than anyone else in history, 4 more than any other American, and 7 more than I could ever hope to win. Sporting fan or not, cycling fan or not, how can you not appreciate this story? Greatness does not come along often, whether it be in sports, politics, medicine, or anything else for that matter - and any chance we get to catch a fleeting glimpse of it should be treasured and enjoyed.
Some say Lance Armstrong has fueled the beginnings of a cycling renaissance in America, that he has brought many fans to the sport that will continue to follow after his departure. Unfortunately I have to disagree. At first, this might have been true, as Armstrong gave visibility to a sport which most Americans knew little about. I think some of the early followers of Lance, maybe those who caught on during his first couple Tour wins, might remain loyal. But for most of us, myself included, Armstrong transcended the sport, and most of those who followed him did just that; followed him, not the sport of cycling. Despite the fact that he has inspired his American contemporaries and followers to undoubtedly achieve great things in his wake, my prediction is that cycling in America will experience a massive dropoff in fan support and enthusiasm.
For all of you who fit that description: if you're looking for a replacement sport, there's plenty of room for you on the tennis bandwagon. Come on over and join me...
July 21, 2005
Miscellaneous Musings on Mindless Matters (Redux)
Continuing my thoughts from my previous rant, here are some of the other things on my mind...
House Shopping
The above heading is probably a little misleading, since I haven't actually been out looking for houses. But I have, ever so slightly, begun the house search process. At this point, it's really just been a matter of finances - seeing what range I can likely afford, what kind of loan I might be able to qualify for, brushing up on some terminology, etc.
I also did a little peeking at some real estate offerings just to get a feel for what I could reasonably look to expect within a given price range based on different areas of town, and realized just how much of a premium is placed on location. I've been hearing it for a while, but I guess I couldn't really understand how true it was until I started looking at figures. It costs a lot to live in a nice, centrally-located area like Dunwoody, unless you stumble upon the right deal at the right time. Given the fact that I'm working off of a single income, with some significant debt already on my plate, it looks like a lot of my options are going to be limited.
But that brings me to my next point: I'm still seriously considering just waiting. While I guess it would be nice to have a place of my own, both for comfort, privacy, and investment reasons, if I'm really honest with myself, I have to admit that I am perfectly happy in the rental realm at the moment. By sharing a place with a roommate I'm avoiding paying exorbitant amounts in rent, and I'm just not at a point in my life where I really want to put up with the maintenance and care of a home. I think my grand plan is to keep an eye out for opportunities, but unless something great presents itself, I'll probably wait a couple years, retire some of my debt, gather some more savings, and start looking in earnest then. But, then again, plans are made to be broken, right? So who knows.
Dog Shopping
Same song, different verse - not really shopping per se, just considering. If the conditions were right I would have a dog right now, but it's not really feasible to get an active dog (which is what I would want) while in an apartment. But I have starting researching breeds to see what I might be interested in. Based on my preliminary searching, three breeds really stick out as dogs that I think I would enjoy owning: Beagle, Jack Russell, and Dalmatian. Each of these, however, has a major flaw: beagles love to howl and dig, Jack Russells can be super-hyper, and dalmatians often suffer from health problems like blindness.
I haven't really researched thoroughly, and haven't really examined deeply what my wants/needs are in a dog, but I do know that I would want a playful, active dog that loves people and would be OK with children and strangers. I wouldn't mind so much if they like to explore/chew/dig, because I think I could take care of that with proper training. But the one thing that would really get on my nerves would be any dog which would seriously disrupt my sleep schedule, because I need my beauty rest. This is the one thing that really worries me about a Beagle - they have a tendency to bay quite loudly, and if done during sleep hours, it would really strain our relationship. If you have any breed suggestions, I'd love to hear them.
Emmy Nominations
Well after a year of what I would consider to be some good TV, the Emmy nominations have been released. Here are the noteworthy headlines:
- Scrubs nominated for Best Comedy - I consider this to be a no-brainer, but you never know with these awards types. I'm glad to see one of the few good comedies on TV getting recognition, but I'm sure it will lose to one of the powerhouses like Arrested Development or Desperate Housewives.
- 24 and Lost nominated for Best Drama - Again, I'm just happy to see these two phenomenal shows getting the recognition they deserve. However, these kind of shows tend not to win; I would expect an underdog win here like Six Feet Under or The West Wing.
- The Office: Christmas Special nominated for Best Made-for-TV Movie - not really a movie, but I'm happy the finale to one of the best comedies of all time received some kind of nod. If you haven't seen the UK version of The Office, you're really missing out.
- Kiefer Sutherland nominated for Best Actor, Drama (24) - Kiefer is the man, period. This guy can do it all - movies, TV, probably theatre for all I know. His portrayal of Jack Bauer is so true to form, and was so perfectly executed this year, that for him not to win this category would be a shame.
- Glenn Close nominated for Best Actress, Drama (The Shield) - This was my favorite entry of all the nominations. Close took so much crap from many Shield fans, many of whom are immature, below-average intelligence males who don't understand good acting when they see it. She was absolutely phenomenal from start to finish and really made Season 4. I doubt she'll win here, but I can't imagine anyone being more deserving.
- Terry O'Quinn and Naveen Andrews both nominated for Best Supporting Actor, Drama (Lost) - I was happy to see anyone nominated from this show, just to represent the phenomenal top-to-bottom acting that made Lost so great. I fully expected O'Quinn (who plays Locke) to be nominated, because he was phenomenal, but Andrews (Sayid) was a surprise. I would have actually chosen Dominic Monaghan (Charlie) instead, but whatever. I think this is a weak category that O'Quinn has a great chance to win.
Getting to the Bottom of Islam
OK, I know I went on a rant about Islam a couple of weeks ago when I saw that episode of 30 Days, but I found this article that I just have to talk about somewhere. The article basically discusses a recent poll conducted in heavily-Muslim countries, gauging support for Osama bin Laden and related terrorist activity. The article mainly focused on how support for such things has decreased recently, but if you read close enough, you'll find something very disturbing in the details. Consider this excerpt:
In Lebanon, the number of people who think the use of bombings and other forms of violence is justified in defense of Islam has dropped from 73 percent in the summer of 2002 to 39 percent now. A decrease in this number also was seen in Morocco, which fell from 40 percent a year ago to 13 percent now, and in Pakistan and Indonesia. In Jordan, the number of people who feel such violence is justified has grown slightly; the number in Turkey remains very low.Since March 2004, the sentiment for bombings against Americans and their allies in Iraq dropped from 70 percent to 49 percent in Jordan, which neighbors Iraq, and dropped by smaller margins in Pakistan, Turkey and Morocco.
and this one:
Public confidence in bin Laden has dipped sharply since May 2003 in Indonesia, Morocco, Lebanon and Turkey — all countries that have experienced recent terrorist bombings. In Pakistan and Jordan, a majority of people continue to say they have at least some confidence in bin Laden, the Saudi who leads Al Qaeda."Support for Usama bin Laden is waning, but there are still people who admire him and view him as a hero".
I think these numbers are actually pretty shocking. Sure, the number of people in Lebanon who support bombing in defense of Islam has dropped 30 percent, but it's still at 40 percent! And the number actually grew over the same time in Jordan! Almost half of Lebanese people feel that suicide and terror bombings are acceptable tactics against allied troops in Iraq. And the bin Laden topic - again, favor has dropped sharply, but over half of the people in Pakistan and Jordan still support a man who is arguably the greatest terrorist in the world? Am I the only one disturbed by this?
If there's one thing that Muslims have attempted to beat into American consciousness since 9/11, it's that the bombings are the work of terrorists, not Muslims. They have argued vehemently and repeatedly that the Muslim religion is explicit in denouncing violence and that the people undertaking these acts are not true Muslims. And, to be honest, I did my best to take their word for it - I certainly did not have the facts to disagree, though I must say that my first instinct was to scoff at this claim.
However, when 40% of a predominantly-Muslim country believes it is justified to bomb in defense of the religion, how can you say that the violence is separate from the religion? Though it might be true in a theoretical sense, it sure seems that many, many Muslims believe and support the wave of terror striking across the globe. So, when a well-meaning man or woman tells me that these acts are deplored and are inconsistent with the Muslim faith, even though I might want to believe them, how can I, when the real world suggests otherwise?
Whoa, got serious there for awhile. I promise to keep it light next time...
July 19, 2005
Book Review: The Grapes of Wrath (1939)
|
|
Written in 1939, America was still in the midst of the Great Depression when the novel was released, and the country was not far removed from the horrible events described in its pages. A scathing attack on ruthless capitalism and the exploitation of the common working man, Steinbeck's story pointed a righteous finger at the wealthy businessmen who were profiting at the farmers' expense. The novel caused quite a stir once it was published, eventually leading to political reform and an easing of the burdens spotlighted by the book. But The Grapes of Wrath would never have been as effective, or poignant, as it was without the classic writing and timeless story for which it has become famous.
On the surface, this is the story of the Joad family, Oklahoman farmers forced off their land due to failing crops and insufficient funds. Left with no home and nowhere to go, they pursue the only course that seems reasonable: having seen advertisements for work available in California, the family packs what they can and moves West to search for employment and opportunity. But it is hardship, not opportunity, that they meet at every turn. Oppressed from every direction imaginable, theirs is a story of unfathomable sadness and loss throughout the novel.
At the outset, the Joads are a large and proud family: 11 members strong, aged 8 to 80, and spanning four generations of hardworking American farmers. Steinbeck is faithful in his portrayal of this hardened, Midwestern family: his characterization of each relative could not strike a truer note than it already does. Each family member is flawed, utterly common, and ultimately beautiful. There is such a strength of will and character among the family that, to see it break down throughout the novel, is tragic and lamentable. They are such good people that, to see them mistreated, hated, and cast aside like animals is enough to instill anger in even the calmest of readers.
Slowly but surely, as the Joads make their way across the country to California, their plight worsens and their resolve is tested, though never broken. Family members die. Others leave with promises of a quick return, only to never be heard from again. Their small reserve of money finds its way into the hands of greedy salesmen, merciless farmers, and others who are (amazingly enough) more needy than they are. The weather and the elements bare down upon them and cause trouble when everything else has already turned sour. While, in the hands of a lesser author, the weight of the despair would be unbearable for the reader, the unshakable optimism of the family gives the reader a glimpse of hope throughout the novel.
Two characters are worthy of particular note: Ma Joad, the matriarch and true heroine of the Joad family, is as fine a protagonist as you will find in literature. Respectful and mindful of her role at times, she is the link which holds the family together throughout the novel. Steinbeck leaves little doubt that she is the moral center and ultimate authority of the family. She is warm, loving, compassionate, unwavering, and wise beyond her years. As far as mothers go, she's about as good as they come. The other key character is a man named Jim Casy, former preacher and social convert, whose tragic tale sits at the center of the author's true scope for the novel. He serves two purposes: to expouse Steinbeck's views that the world's real spirituality and righteousness lies in the heart of a collective society, not in a distant God; and to espouse the social manifesto which is the true heart of The Grapes of Wrath.
While the Joad family is the focus, the heart of the novel is in its passionate belief that socialism must necessarily crush capitalism for America to survive. His words border on cataclysmic prophecy, crying vehemently that, once the throngs of disenfranchised Americans learn to organize and care for the common good, the corrupt capitalist businessmen will be easily and mightily overthrown. He espouses this view in alternating chapters between the Joad story, and it is in these chapters that Steinbeck shows us what a master of prose he is. These sermons contain some of the most beautiful, powerful and convincing speech I've ever heard. Don't take my word for it - here is an excerpt from Chapter 14:
This you may say of man--when theories change and crash, when schools, philosophies, when narrow dark alleys of thought, national, religious, economic, grow and disintegrate, man reaches, stumbles forward, painfully, mistakenly sometimes. Having stepped forward, he may slip back, but only half a step, never the full step back. This you may say and know it and know it. This you may know when the bombs plummet out of the black planes on the market place, when prisoners are stuck like pigs, when the crushed bodies drain filthily in the dust. You may know it in this way. If the step were not being taken, if the stumbling-forward ache were not alive, the bombs would not fall, the throats would not be cut. Fear the time when the bombs stop falling while the bombers live--for every bomb is proof that the spirit has not died. And fear the time when the strikes stop while the great owners live--for every little beaten strike is proof that the step is being taken. And this you can know--fear the time when Manself will not suffer and die for a concept, for this one quality is the foundation of Manself, and this one quality is man, distinctive in the universe....
Is a tractor bad? Is the power that turns the long furrows wrong? If this tractor were ours it would be good--not mine, but ours. If our tractor turned the long furrows of our land, it would be good. Not my land, but ours. We could love that tractor then as we have loved this land when it was ours. But this tractor does two things--it turns the land and turns us off the land. There is little difference between this tractor and a tank. The people are driven, intimidated, hurt by both. We must think about this.
One man, one family driven from the land; this rusty car creaking along the highway to the west. I lost my land, a single tractor took my land. I am alone and I am bewildered. And in the night one family camps in a ditch and another family pulls in and the tents come out. The two men squat on their hams and the women and children listen. Here is the node, you who hate change and fear revolution. Keep these two squatting men apart; make them hate, fear, suspect each other. Here is the anlage of the thing you fear. This is the zygote. For here "I lost my land" is changed; a cell is split and from its splitting grows the thing you hate--"we lost our land." The danger is here, for two men are not as lonely and perplexed as one. And from this first "we" there grows a still more dangerous thing: "I have a little food" plus "I have none." If from this problem the sum is "We have a little food," the thing is on its way, the movement has direction. Only a little multiplication now, and this land, this tractor are ours. The two men squatting in a ditch, the little fire, the side-meat stewing in a single pot, the silent, stone-eyed women; behind, the children listening with their souls to words their minds do not understand. Then night draws down. The baby has a cold. Here, take this blanket. It's wool. It was my mother's blanket--take it for the baby. This is the thing to bomb. This is the beginning--from "I" to "we."
Absolutely stunning stuff. And you'll find such passion and faith in human dignity throughout The Grapes of Wrath. By revealing the depths of human despair and the horrors that are associated with the primal fears of hunger and disenfranchisement, contrasted with the amazing perseverence and fortitude of his main characters, Steinbeck portrays his unwavering belief that the spirit of mankind cannot, and will not, be held down for long.
Miscellaneous Musings on Mindless Matters
Well, life continues on: work and play, work and play. Lather, rinse and repeat. Things are going well, but nothing particularly mind-blowing has happened recently.
As a result, no issue in particular is really burning in my mind, so I figured I'd again touch on all kinds of different things crossing through my brain...
- Book Crazy - I've been doing lots of reading, at least compared to my usual pace. I've really been flying through books. I just finished up The Grapes of Wrath; definitely one of the best novels I've ever read. The review will be up shortly. Speaking of reviews, I've finally gotten back in the groove. You can find several new Book/Movie reviews on the page, if you go to the main page and look at the Categories, or search the Recent Entries. With any luck, I'll keep up my current pace.
Next up will probably be another classic from my top 100 novels project, but after that, I think it's Harry Potter time. I'm already getting excited about Book 6. Oh, and fair warning: if any of you (*cough* Aaron *cough*) spoil anything for me, I will rain down fire and brimstone on your perjured soul.
- Barber Shop - Oh yeah. I hit up the local barber the other day for my monthly trip - really, how can you not love a place called Gino and Jackson's? It's so quaint, it really feels like somebody put it in a time machine and brought it here from 1940. Best things about a good old-timey barber shop (in no particular order):
- the barber's chair
- the straight-razor shave
- the warm shaving creme
- the post-shave hot towel (and if you're lucky, the accompanying neck massage)
- the charming old guys who speak broken english at best with a heavy german/russian/italian/greek accent (take your pick), and then make jokes with their buddies (i.e., relatives) the whole time in their native tongue
Yet another reason why being a guy is awesome. $20, and it's always an awesome experience. Sure beats the pants out of paying $200 for a perm from some crazy voodoo lady named Chavannaluze.
- Bachelor Party - Ahh yes, another reason why guyness is great. Eric's bachelor party was this past Saturday, so we headed to Dave & Buster's at around 6, had dinner, went crazy until about 1, then headed back to his place to sit around and chill, and watch some Team America: World Police until everyone collapsed at around 3:30. Best moment: Eric in the D&B gift-shop, still somewhat drunk, carrying a 3-foot-tall neon blue/green stuffed gorilla on his shoulders, holding a pink pillow that said "Princess", and giving the devil sign with his hands. Soooo out-of-character. Priceless.
(Oh yeah, and he took that gorilla home, too...)
- Second Day of 30 Days - So I sat down to watch a couple more episodes of the new show 30 Days. Good stuff. The first episode featured two environmentally-unconscious New Yorkers (male and female) spending a month living in a Missouri eco-village. Pretty hilarious. The woman was slightly obnoxious but all-in-all it was an educational and entertaining hour, which is the whole point. I had no idea you could rig up a car to run on vegetable oil, but that's what these folks did out there. Best part of the show was when the guy couldn't go any longer without meat, so he borrowed a pellet-gun and shot himself a rabbit. I can completely understand - you can only go so long without meaty goodness.
The other episode I watched placed a conservative, heterosexual Christian in the heart of a completely gay district of San Francisco, living with a male homosexual roommate. I think the key to these shows is in the people they pick. In this particular episode, the straight guy was very down-to-earth, more open-minded that he first let on, and in general a very easy-going dude. A good TV personality, if you will. His roommate was about the same - gay, but not flambuoyantly-in-your-face gay. I was afraid when I tuned in that this would be like another hour of "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy", but it was anything but. Very interesting stuff.
However, very similar to the Christian/Muslim experiment that they did in a previous show, I was shocked by the "spirtiual advisement" that our heterosexual friend received in this episode. He attended the Metropolitan Community Church in his neighborhood, a church which focuses on outreach to gay and lesbian members of the community. He heard the pastor speak about how the Bible does not excplicitly condemn homosexuality, and he disagreed, so he took the responsibility on himself to set up a private meeting with the pastor and discuss some things.
Well, as with the Muslim imam, she gave completely misleading and (I would argue) dangerous answers to his pointed questions. I will paraphrase here, but she essentially said that she has a long history and a loving relationship with her lesbian partner, and that they are good people. Then she specifically stated that she felt God cares more about what we do with our lives than what we do with our genitalia. First off, it's a completely ludicrous statement, because that argument would allow someone to condone rape, sexual assault, and any kind of sexual misconduct. Then she stated she couldn't very well give up her long-term relationship, that that would be too hard, so certainly God wouldn't want her to do that. What kind of point is that? As if God never asked us to do hard things? Hard, hard things? Just because it's not easy doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do.
Finally, she pulled out the Ol' Faithful excuse. "The Bible says Thou shalt not kill, doesn't it? But you killed on the battlefield, right? (The man was a former soldier) So you can justify that, but you can't justify homosexuality?"
The fact that this is the best that a pastor can come up with is staggering to me. I honestly believed that a lesbian pastor, someone who considers herself a bringer of the Word and must certainly deal with these kind of issues everyday, would have some very thought-provoking and eye-opening interpretations of the Bible that might justifiably (at least in her mind) explain why her lifestyle is acceptable. But really - the best she could come up with is "If killing is wrong and you do it, then I can be gay and it's OK"??? I'm still blown away by that. Even if she's right, and killing is sin in all circumstances, all that does is make people who kill sinners (which they already are), but it has no effect on the acceptableness of homosexuality. Two wrongs don't make a right. Not to mention, she's dead wrong about the whole killing issue. If you take it in context, along with every other verse in the Bible related to murder - you will see that, in certain circumstances, God made it very clear that taking another life is acceptable. I mean, come on, God commanded his people to go defeat armies all of the time! But if you combine every verse in the Bible that references homosexuality (granted, there aren't many), you will find across-the-board that it is considered an abomination. It is pretty clear-cut. Just as I can't pull out one verse out-of-context and use it to my advantage, this lady can't either. You have to take the whole book as one, and if you do that, then you see the futility of arguing in favor of homosexuality.
Regardless of all of that crap with the pastor, it was a very enlightening episode. He met lots of good people; particularly his roommate, who was a very level-headed and compassionate fellow. There is one more episode in the season, and I recommend you check it out. Wednesday, 10PM, FX Network.
Before I go any further - in my above rant I was very aggressive against the idea of homosexuality, and I do believe the Bible is very clear on it. However, one thing I saw a lot of in the episode was hate. Deep-seated, tangible hate from "Christians" toward homosexuals. There is absolutely no excuse for this. I might believe it is a sin, but I also know that I sin every single day. I do not condemn it any more than I condemn myself for being unworthy of God's love and Jesus' sacrifice. I hold no hate in my heart for anyone, and I think many people confuse condemnation of sin with hatred of the violators, and with good reason: many people out there are spouting both hatred and condemnation. But I wanted to make it clear that I'm not one of those people. Nevertheless, I bring up the whole issue because it is very dangerous that many people don't even consider homosexuality a sin. This is the issue that must be confronted, but it must be done with love and compassion. That is, after all, how Christ handles all of us as sinners.
So... any comments?
- Tour de France - Two weeks down, one to go. Is anyone surprised that Lance Armstrong is in the lead? The guy is is amazing. Actually, that doesn't quite cover it. I think it goes without saying that he is the greatest cyclist of all time. But on to more interesting questions. Is he the greatest athlete of our time? I would say yes. I think there are very few people who could make a claim to the throne; it requires unparalleled skill and unprecedented achievement. I think the only other people who could make the claim are Michael Jordan and Steffi Graf, with Tiger Woods making a move in that direction if he keeps it up. But I give Lance the edge. He has dominated his sport so completely and masterfully that it almost seems effortless. That is the key of a great athlete; he/she makes the sport look easy, and utterly distances themself from their competitors. Plus, he did it later in life, at an age when most athletes would consider themselves well past their prime. Oh, and did I mention he did all of this after conquering testicular cancer? Are you kidding me?
But I'm going to go further: I think he might just be the best athlete of all time. Who's got more of a right to that position? Babe Ruth? Muhammad Ali? Perhaps only Jim Thorpe has a right to complain. But I'm sticking with my claim. His achievements are so staggering, so unexpected when they began, and came in a sport so physically demanding, that I defy anyone to find a sporting achievement that is more significant or awe-inspiring. He's well on his way to his 7th straight win and the sweet rest of retirement. And when he gets there, his place in history will be secure, and he will have set a great example for all who follow, regardless of the sport.
Wow. This post got way too long way too fast. I sure have a bad habit of doing that. And here I am looking at the list of things I wanted to comment on, and there's four or five more. Sounds like I need to do a mid-week post. I know everyone is jumping out of their seats in anticipation. Hey - you can't say I don't aim to please...
July 12, 2005
Book Review: The Invisible Man (1897)
|
|
It is the story of a man known only to the reader as Griffin, an ambitious scientist who has stumbled upon the secret to becoming invisible. When we meet Griffin, we are not immediately aware of his condition - his body is completely covered by clothing. However, the reader is soon enough let in on the secret, and through a series of misfortunes, the rest of the world is made known as well. In one of the more interesting sections of the novel, Griffin confides in an old friend and relates the story of how he became invisible, and the previously unforeseen difficulties that he faced as a result. This portion of the story provides the core of the science in this science-fiction work, and it is a well thought-out and crafted read.
Wells believed that the key to truly original science-fiction was to create an ordinary world, and inject a solitary, unbelievable alteration to that world, and thus narrate the inevitable results. This is evident in his classic The War of the Worlds, but particularly effective here in The Invisible Man. Set in rural Sussex, England, the landscape is one of serenity and utmost peacefulness, and the inhabitants of the town of Iping are quaint and charming. What more interesting environment could exist in which to drop an Invisble Man? The effects are predictably earth-shattering, and thus the novel tells a thrilling story, despite the sometimes-dated style of narration used by Wells.
Perhaps the most interesting thing about the novel is the force with which it is written. It is a novel that would be considered violent even by today's standards - I cannot imagine how it was received 100 years ago. The boldness of the author results in a work which has aged fairly well and still generates powerful imagery over a century after its creation.
The focus of the book, the Invisible Man himself, is quite an interesting character - and necessarily so, since the novel is completely preoccupied by the man and his story. Wells takes an interesting position in his narration, exhibiting both contempt and understanding for his lead character. The transformation of the Invisible Man from aspiring pioneer to trapped dog is rapid and frightening, and the author certainly condemns his eventual turn to violence. But at distinct points throughout the novel, he relates subtle sympathy for Griffin, suggesting that he might - just might - be a victim of his circumstances and his ambition. So, which is it? Thankfully Wells leaves it up to the reader to decide what to make of him.
The Invisible Man is a perfect example of how good literature can withstand the test of time. It is a short, enjoyable read, provoking intelligent topics for discussion and thought, while providing enough excitement to prevent feeling like a lecture. I can almost guarantee that, as the Invisible Man tells his story, you will discover something about invisibility that you probably wouldn't have thought about before. And in the closing chapters of the novel, you will likely appreciate a level of suspense that has rarely been surpassed since. It is this ability to combine sound science and great fiction that made H.G. Wells such a beloved author.
July 7, 2005
Top 5 Sitcoms Of All-Time
I ramble incessantly about my favorite shows nowadays, almost all of which (save Scrubs) are dramas. This is because I firmly believe that, all other things considered, a drama is better than a comedy. While there is something to be said for the laughs you get from a comedy, dramas tend to be better written, acted, and more engrossing. Good ones which stand the test of time tend to be some of the best television around.
But enough about dramas. Despite all this, and despite my general distaste for the sitcom genre, there have been several great comedies throughout the ages - but only a handful really stand up to be classics in my mind. I figured it's time that they got their due and received some well-earned discussion on this site...
But first, a couple rules:
- Obviously, the show has to be a sitcom:
sit·com ('sit-"käm)
noun.
: a radio or television comedy series that involves a continuing cast of characters in a succession of episodes - In order to give appropriate fairness to longevity, I'm requiring that a show have existed for at least three years. Hard as it was, this forces me to eliminate certain flash-in-the-pan classics (most notably, The Office). Oh well - that show has had its day in the sun on this website.
- Friends is not allowed in the list. OK, just kidding (not like I need a rule to tell me that). I just felt like pissing some people off with that one.
Hold on to your butts, here we go...
5. Cheers
Years in Production: 12 (1982-1993)Iconic Character: Sam Malone
Best Character: Norm
What a classic show. Best known for its lead character Sam Malone (played by Ted Danson) and his arrogant yet hilarious swagger, Cheers showed the softer side of those people who spend most of their life in bars. It boasted one of the strongest ensemble casts in history - Danson, Shelley Long, Kirstie Alley, Kelsey Grammar, Woody Harrelson, Rhea Perlman, and others. Everyone fit their character perfectly. The show's writing was strong enough to withstand a death among the cast (the beloved "Coach", in 1985), and continue to grow strong after major cast changes (the departure of Shelley Long and replacement with Kirstie Alley). Wendt was the show-stealer as Norm, the guy who practically lived in the bar. But the strength of the show lie in Sam's relationship with the women on the show, particularly Shelley Long in the early seasons. Their argumentative relationship probably boasted the most sexual tension of any on-screen duo in history. Oh, and it gets major points for one of the best TV theme songs ever made. You know you sing along whenever you hear it.
Classic Scene:
Sam: You are the nuttiest, the stupidest, the phoniest fruitcake I ever met!
Diane:You, Sam Malone are the most arrogant self centered son-of-a...
Sam: Shut up! Shut your fat mouth!
Diane: Make me!
Sam: Make you?... My God I'm, I'm gonna, I'm gonna bounce you off every wall in this office!
Diane: Try it and you'll be walking funny tomorrow... or should I say funnier?
Sam: You know, you know I always wanted to pop you one! Maybe this is my lucky day, huh?
Diane: You disgust me! I hate you!
Sam: Are you as turned on as I am?
Diane: More!
(They kiss passionately)
4. South Park
Years in Production: 9 so far (1997-present)Iconic Character: Eric Cartman
Best Character: Eric Cartman
Ruthlessly funny, proudly defiant in constantly pushing the edge, it's one of the funniest and sharpest shows ever made, if you can get past the crudeness of the language and imagery. The premise is simple: the writers choose something to make fun of each episode and satirize it through the show's characters. Eric Cartman is one of the all-time great TV characters: selfish, arrogant, vicious and vindictive, patronizing... all the traits of someone you just love to hate. What's best about South Park is that, even when they choose to poke fun at a current event or issue, they do a good job of lambasting both sides. That's what separates satire from propaganda - and South Park is about as good as it comes. It's starting to suffer nowadays as they keep adding more characters and run out of original voices, plus they're a little too current on their current events. Despite this, its razor wit is still as sharp as ever.
Classic Scene
(Cartman is REALLY PISSED at Scott Tenorman and plots his revenge at the Chili-Con Carnival cook-off)
Cartman: Hey this is great!
Scott: It's a special recipe
Cartman: Ah, this is really good Scott.
Scott: I'm glad you like it so much, because now that you're almost finished, I have something to tell you.
Cartman: What??? You mean how you put pubes in your chili???
Scott: What......???
Cartman: Yes, I'm afraid this isn't your chili Scott. I switched it with Chef's. It's delicious, Chef! I hadn't planned on that. What I DID plan on however was that my friends Stan and Kyle would betray me and warn you that the Chili-Con Carnival was a trap. I assumed they would tell you that I had trained Jenkins' pony to bite off your weiner. What they didn't tell you was that Jenkins is a crazy redneck who shoots tresspassers on sight. Knowing that you would try to do something to the pony I warned Mr. Jenkins that violent pony killers were in the area. I also knew that you wouldn't go yourself for fear of having your weiner bitten off. You would most likely send your parents. And I'm afraid that when Mr. Jenkins spotted them on his property, he shot and killed both your parents.
Scott: My Mom and Dad are dead....???
Cartman: I came just in time to see Mr. Jenkins' giving his report to Officer Barbrady.....and of course to steal the bodies. After a night with the hacksaw I was all ready to put on my Chili-Con Carnival, so that I could tell you personally about your parents demise. And, of course, to feed you your chili. Do you like it.........? Do you like it Scott.......? I call it: Mr. and Mrs. Tenorman Chili.
(Scott begins crying... Cartman begins to lick the tears off his face.)
Cartman: Oh, the tears of unfathomable sadness! Yummy!
3. Seinfeld
Years in Production: 9 (1990-1998)Iconic Character: Jerry Seinfeld
Best Character: Cosmo Kramer
How in the world did a show about nothing catch on? Probably because it's a mirror of real life. For 9 seasons Seinfeld and his buddies carried on ridiculous and hilarious conversations and situations about completely meaningless crap. Sporting one of the best ensemble casts in history and some of the wittiest teleplays, Seinfeld's ability to last almost 10 years while staying true to its original premise says a lot about how funny this show was.
Classic Scene
George Costanza: So, did you get your new plates?
Cosmo Kramer: Oh... yeah. I got my new plates. But they mixed them up. Somebody got mine and I got their vanity plates.
George Costanza: What do they say?
Cosmo Kramer: Assman.
Jerry: Assman?
Cosmo Kramer: Yeah. Assman, Jerry. I'm Cosmo Kramer, the Assman!
Jerry: Who would order a license plate that says "Assman"?
George Costanza: Maybe they're Wilt Chamberlain's.
Jerry: It doesn't have to be someone who gets a lot of women. It could be just some guy with a big ass.
Cosmo Kramer: Yeah, or it could be a proctologist.
Jerry: Yeah. Proctologist.
George Costanza: Come on! No doctor would put that on his car.
Cosmo Kramer: Have you ever met a proctologist? Well, they usually have a very good sense of humor. You meet a proctologist at a party, don't walk away. Plant yourself there, because you will hear the funniest stories you've ever heard. See, no one wants to admit to them that they stuck something up there. Never! It's always an accident. Every proctologist story ends in the same way: "It was a million to one shot, Doc. Million to one."
2. Cosby Show
Years in Production: 9 (1984-1992)Iconic Character: Cliff Huxtable
Best Character: Cliff Huxtable
What an amazing show. Underrated on the comedy scale because it's often considered a "family show", but when it was on its game it was often unparalleled in comedic value. Bill Cosby was a genius and in his prime he was the father that everybody wished they had. Bonus points for being often educational and constructive for the whole family. More bonus points for shedding light on what the modern African-American family was really like in the 80's/90's, shattering all kinds of misconceptions.
Classic Scene
(Theo tells his father Cliff he doesn't need to go to college, that he can get a job and be just like "regular people". Cliff uses monopoly money to teach him a lesson.)
Cliff: So how much do you expect to make a week for 'regular people'?
Theo: $250
Cliff (pointing to the bed): Sit down. I will give you $300 a week. $1200 a month. (Cliff hands the money to Theo)
Theo: I'll take it!
Cliff: And I will take $350 for taxes.
Theo: Whoa!
Cliff: Oh, yeah. See, the government goes for the regular people first. So, how much does that leave you with?
Theo: $850.
Cliff: Okay, now you'll need an apartment because you are NOT living here. Now an apartment in Manhattan will run you at least $400 a month.
Theo: I'll live in New Jersey. (Theo takes back $200)
Cliff: Now you'll need a car. (Cliff takes $300)
Theo: I'll drive a motorbike. (Theo takes back $100)
Cliff: You're gonna need a helmet. (Cliff takes $50) "Now figure $100 a month for clothes and shoes.
Theo: Figure $200. I wanna look GOOD.
Cliff: So, how much does that leave you with?
Theo: $200. So, no problem.
Cliff: There IS a problem! You haven't EATEN yet! (Cliff takes $100)
Theo: I can get by on bologna and cereal. (Theo takes back his $100) So I've got everything under control PLUS $200 left for the month.
Cliff: You plan to have a girlfriend?
Theo: For sure.
(Cliff takes the remaining $200)
Cliff (pointing at Theo's empty hand): Regular people.
1. NewsRadio
Years in Production: 5 (1995-1999)Iconic Character: Bill McNeil
Best Character: Mr. Jimmy James
Completely underrated, often misunderstood, and widely unknown, NewsRadio redefined the sitcom during it's somewhat-brief 5-year run. It sported the best ensemble cast in history; virtually every member of the cast has gone on to later success, despite being practically unknown when the show debuted. NewsRadio pushed the limits of what was considered the standard for network television. It was lightning-paced, interspersing visual-physical comedy with subtle wit. It also had a hard edge, oftentimes being darker than other comedies were willing to be. No show could ever make me laugh as loud or as often as NewsRadio did. Despite the death of Phil Hartman after season 4 (and the eventual end of the show one year later), it was the most creative and spontaneously ingenious sitcom ever made.
Classic Scene
I can't seem to find a quote from my absolute favorite scene (where Mr. James runs for President and then claims to be Deep Throat just to meet girls), so I will offer a few alternatives:
Lisa: He won't even admit that he's jealous. That is the thing that just drives me crazy.
Beth: You know, I do not blame you. If my boyfriend acted like that, I would go absolutely bitch-cakes.
Lisa: Bitch-cakes?
Beth: I just made that up. Think it's gonna catch on?
Dave (to Mr. James): Normally at a time like this I'd ask you for advice, and you'd say something that would make no sense at all, but somehow it would all fit together. Like, I would tell you, "Sir, I have a problem," and you'd say, "Well, what is it?" and I'd say, "Well, sir, Lisa wants to have a baby, but she doesn't want to get married," and you'd say "Dave, why milk the cow when you have a fridge full of steaks?" And I'd say, "Sir, that makes no sense," and you'd say, "Well, it sure made sense when that guy Chuck Connors said it in that movie Chinatown," and I'd say, "Sir, Chuck Connors wasn't in Chinatown," and you'd say, "Dave, if I wanted to have this conversation I'd have hired that guy Siskel Ebert to do your job," and I'd say, "Sir, Siskel and Ebert are two people," and you'd say, "Dave, just because the man is fat is no reason to make fun of him."
Lisa: Dave, tell me your deepest, darkest fantasy.
Dave: Oh, no.
Lisa: Oh, come on. You can tell me.
Dave: No, it's too embarrassing.
Lisa: Come on, please?
Dave: Oh, OK. Ever since I was 14 years old, I've always fantasized about making love on the space shuttle...
Lisa: That's very cute.
Dave: ...with a space prostitute.
Pure genius.
July 6, 2005
Movie Review: Hoop Dreams (1994)
|
|
Hoop Dreams tells the combined stories of Arthur Agee and William Gates, two young boys from the inner city of Chicago who both pursue their dream of playing in the NBA. Both boys show great promise on their neighborhood basketball courts, and at the age of 14, both are recruited to play at distant St. Joseph's High School, alma mater of Hall of Famer Isiah Thomas, who both boys idolize. It is a dream come true for both Arthur and William, as they see this as their first step towards NBA stardom. But once they get to St. Joe's, their paths begin to diverge in quite unexpected and unbelievable ways.
This film is the culimination of many years of dedication on the part of the filmmakers, including five full years of following the stories of Arthur and William. The creators show incredible commitment to the project, never wavering from their faith in the subjects and their interest in the stories. As a result, they weave a timeless and poignant story that couldn't be any more entertaining if it were pure fiction. The fact that it is all completely true and recorded over the course of several years only magnifies the towering accomplishment.
Speaking to the skeptics, I cannot emphasize strongly enough that you do not have to be a basketball fan to love this film. Like any great picture, it transcends its genre, and all shallow attempts at compartmentalization, to become something more important than any "basketball movie" could ever hope to be. While the story is admittedly basketball-heavy in the early parts of the film, this is quite necessary to establish the love that these boys have for the game, the seriousness of their dreams, and the commitment they show in reaching those dreams. However, as the documentary progresses, something interesting happens. Basketball begins to take a back seat to real life. Whether this was intentional all along on the part of the filmmakers, or something that they stumbled upon during the course of production, we'll never know. But it's clear that, throughout the picture, the sport becomes a vehicle for relating the story of the lives of the boys and their families.
And what stories they are. There are too many things to cover here. The film touches on more issues, and raises more questions, than could ever be expected from a single project, even one that weighs in at three hours. We get an up-close portrait of the Chicago ghetto. Rather than putting the focus on the pimps and the pushers, like the sensationalized Hollywood blockbusters always seem to do, we see real families struggling to live among the chaos, facing hardships, overcoming obstacles, and in general persevering through the circumstances. We see the convincing reality of how the boys' talents are manipulated by those around them. Though the filmmakers subtlely choose to never directly comment on it, it is clear that the boys are often just pawns; family members try to live vicariously through them, coaches manipulate them for glory, recruits persuade them with ulterior motives. We see social injustices, ineffective public school systems, and the unavoidable intrusion of drugs and violence on the families, despite their best efforts to avoid such dangers.
But at the center of it all are two good-natured, hard-working, dreamers who refuse to give up. They might not be the brightest kids - they probably could have and should have tried harder in school - but no child is perfect, and you have to respect Arthur and William for pursuing their chosen goals with determination far beyond their years. Their mothers are moving stories as well - each a strong, compassionate matriarch who makes sacrifices for her son throughout the film. One of the most touching moments of the movie is when Arthur's mother graduates from a nursing class at a local community college. The joy on her face is real, unrehearsed, and absolutely moving. But in the same scene that our heart races with happiness for her accomplishment, we see a wide shot of the graduation auditorium where the place is completely empty except for the graduates - education doesn't have quite the same crowd appeal as basketball in the Chicago ghetto. Such is the power and brilliance of Hoop Dreams.
I will not say what becomes of Arthur and William - it is a story that you will want to live for yourself. There is a reason that Roger Ebert named this film the best of the 1990's. Its scope might be grand, but it does not fall short in achieving any of its goals. It is a powerful, gritty, raw and realistic film that explores human life as fully as it does the ideal of the NBA dream. The only reason I cannot give it the highest mark possible is because I reserve a "10" for films that I consider to be my absolute favorite movies, and Hoop Dreams falls just short of this distinction. Nevertheless it is ultimately thrilling and entertaining. Basketball fan or not, anyone who enjoys a good drama will find this film to be a dream.
July 5, 2005
Book Review: The Sound and the Fury (1929)
|
|
The title of the novel comes from a line in Shakespeare's Macbeth:
Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
A more appropriate title may have never been chosen; in many ways these few words summarize the themes underlying Faulkner's complex and emotional work. Despite his love for the South, Faulkner seems most comfortable using pain as his vehicle of expressing it, seen most clearly in "The Sound and the Fury" and "As I Lay Dying", each of which tells a harrowing tale of a dysfunctional Southern family and the misfortunes that ultimately destroy them.
The novel is not an easy read, and it's probably worth mentioning its difficulties here at the beginning as a series of disclaimers. In what was to become typical Faulkner style, the story is often presented in a stream-of-consciousness format, from the vantage point of several different narrators. These speakers also vary in their levels of coherence and dependability, ranging from a middle-age retarded man to an anonymous, third-party voice. The early parts of the novel are especially difficult to follow, as the speakers' fractured states of mind lead them to jump around in time, often without warning or context. Complicating matters is the fact that each narrator tells their part in full, meaning the story is only broken up into 4 pieces - which makes a long-term reading more difficult, as there are very few "chapter" breaks. As if this weren't enough, first-time readers will likely trip over names in the early stages, as several characters share the same name, and it might take a good portion of the book before the reader has them straightened out (especially since clarity and reason don't reign too supremely in the early portions). Finally, given Faulkner's commitment to portraying a realistic portrait of the early-1900's Deep South, expect to find textual representations of thick Southern accents, and plenty of words which would not be considered appropriate in public speech today.
Despite all of this, "The Sound and the Fury" is a worthwhile read, ultimately grand in scope and heartbreaking in its delivery. It tells the story of the Compsons, a family who, despite their long and proud history, will meet their demise as a result of the events and bad decisions related in the book. It is a family which seems destined for failure; indeed, the matriarch Caroline is convinced the family is cursed. And she may be right: each family member has a catstrophic flaw which leads to their unraveling. Caroline is an ineffectionate hypochondriac prone to worrying and superstition. Her husband Jason is an alcoholic. Their daughter Caddy is promiscuous. And their three sons are all obsessed with Caddy, albeit in different (but equally destructive) ways.
And this is really the center of the book - Caddy's fall and its effect on her three brothers. Caddy's early loss of her virginity, and subsequent pregnancy to an unknown father, leads to an early divorce and banishment from her own family. This series of events takes its toll on each brother, in subsequent sections of the novel.
The first narration belongs to Benjy, Caddy's younger retarded brother. He feels a maternal love for her that borders on obsession and intense anxiety. He feels safety in her innocence and maternal protection, and when her sexual experimentation leads to her distance and eventual removal from the Compson house, Benjy cannot cope. Benjy's section is by far the most difficult to follow, and will likely require extreme patience from first-time readers. He jumps wildly through time, focusing on a handful of events, ranging from his early childhood, to the present-day of the novel, when he is in his thirties. Regardless of the time, the majority of his memories center around Caddy and his inability to understand her loss.
The second section is Quentin's, the oldest Compson child. His feelings for Caddy are romantic in nature, but not sexual; he is not in love with her body, and he does not seek an incestual relationship. Indeed, quite the opposite; we see that he is repulsed by the idea of sex. On the contrary, he is in love with an idealistic representation of Caddy - her innocence and virginity wrapped up in a protective obsession for her which he harbors throughout his life. He is emotionally unable to deal with the shattering of this image once she engages in sex and ultimately marries, and as such, he commits suicide. His section, while easier to read than Benjy's, is still difficult as his state of mind is warped with despair. He focuses on fewer memories than Benjy, but each memory is more vivid and agonizingly reconstructed in his head. He also has a relatively coherent present-day thread, as he takes us through the last day of his life.
Jason, the final Compson child, is considered to be "the only sane Compson", but a close look at his section reveals that he is just as disturbed as his siblings. While he is perhaps more mentally stable than the others, he is consumed with anger and spite for his sister, who he holds responsible for the loss of his only real chance at a good job (working for her husband, who divorces Caddy from shame and denies Jason employment). The truth is that Jason likely would have never got the job anyway (not having any professional experience), but that does not stop him from hating her for the rest of his life. He inherits the stubbornness and emotional insensitivity of his mother and takes it out on anyone he can. While his section is an easy read, it is laced with vitriol. Every page is dripping with disgust for everyone: Caddy, her illegitimate daughter, his negro slaves, his co-workers, and anyone else who gets in his way. His anger at his sister leads him to irrational bouts of revenge against her daughter, which result in a series of bad decisions that end up ruining his life (and the rest of the family in the process). As the only living male Compson able to marry and have kids, his refusal to wed marks the end of the Compson family.
As is probably very evident from the above synopsis, this is a depressing tale of obsession and loss. There are no winners in this story. There are very few sympathetic characters; in fact, you could make an argument that Dilsey, the Compson's head slave, is the focus of the book, rather than the Compson's themselves. After all, she is the only kindhearted and levelheaded character in the book. Surrounded by turmoil, she nevertheless endures:
"I've seed de first en de last ... I seed de beginnin, en now I sees de endin."
Indeed, Dilsey is the sole witness to the entire Compson line. It is a sad tale, but an ultimately powerful and rewarding one. The depth of emotion and imagery portrayed throughout the novel is astounding. Faulkner's stream-of-consciousness technique is masterful, and his ability to capture the Deep South so eloquently in written word might as well serve as history rather than fiction. You can feel Faulkner's love for the South on every page. And despite the numerous literary hurdles which might make it an intimidating read, you're likely to love this story.