Thursday, December 21, 1995
The Ramayana
condensed and retold in prose form by R.K. Narayan
1973
The story of Rama who battles the demon Ravana to rescue his abducted wife. This version is based on the popular 11th century Tamil version by Kamban and not the 4th century Sanskrit original by Valmiki. Although it of course lacks much, being hugely cut from the myth- and parable-rich epic style, I enjoyed it a lot. It is told in a readable, page-turning novelist's style.
four stars
Sunday, November 26, 1995
Jack Johnson Is a Dandy
by Jack Johnson
The autobiography of boxing great Jack Johnson. The man had a fascinating life – marrying four women, two white; opening a cabaret that allowed both blacks and whites; escaping prison through a clever ruse; traveling the globe engaging in various business and athletic exploits; spying for the U.S. government; going back to prison willingly – and so on, all in the early 1900s. His book (and I don't see why he couldn't have written the bulk himself) is very repetitive, patchy, insufficiently explanatory in places, and jumps around chronologically so as to be very confusing. However, it's still readable, and I did enjoy it. There's one section that deals with moderation in diet, the role of "the new woman" and how she should stay home, and the decline of the world due to cabarets and jazz music; this section I cannot believe Johnson wrote as he lead a very strenuous life himself, was hardly temperate, took his wives everywhere with him, and was in fact a jazz musician and cabaret owner. Other than that passage, the book was interesting throughout, and had a touching epilogue by his last wife attesting to his gentleness with women. Now, of course, I have to read a biography of him, to find out what of what Johnson wrote were lies...
three stars
The autobiography of boxing great Jack Johnson. The man had a fascinating life – marrying four women, two white; opening a cabaret that allowed both blacks and whites; escaping prison through a clever ruse; traveling the globe engaging in various business and athletic exploits; spying for the U.S. government; going back to prison willingly – and so on, all in the early 1900s. His book (and I don't see why he couldn't have written the bulk himself) is very repetitive, patchy, insufficiently explanatory in places, and jumps around chronologically so as to be very confusing. However, it's still readable, and I did enjoy it. There's one section that deals with moderation in diet, the role of "the new woman" and how she should stay home, and the decline of the world due to cabarets and jazz music; this section I cannot believe Johnson wrote as he lead a very strenuous life himself, was hardly temperate, took his wives everywhere with him, and was in fact a jazz musician and cabaret owner. Other than that passage, the book was interesting throughout, and had a touching epilogue by his last wife attesting to his gentleness with women. Now, of course, I have to read a biography of him, to find out what of what Johnson wrote were lies...
three stars
Saturday, November 25, 1995
Asimov's Guide To Shakespare, Vol. 1
by Isaac Asimov
Volume I, at 670 pages, deals with the Greek, Roman, and Italian plays. In the book, Asimov explains practically all of the historical, mythological and scientific references in Shakespeare's oeuvre, including two long poems. In addition, Asimov makes some interesting scholarly inferences, such as suggesting that in "Troilus And Cressida," Cressida's depiction as a worthless woman has basis in the actions of Elizabeth I at the time, when Shakespeare's patron Essex had fallen out of her favor; or claiming that in "Romeo And Juliet," the text indicates strongly that the feud was not as important to either side as Juliet made it out to be, and that only her youthful love of furtive romance made things more complicated than they should have been. This book is incredibly informative and well-written.
four stars
Volume I, at 670 pages, deals with the Greek, Roman, and Italian plays. In the book, Asimov explains practically all of the historical, mythological and scientific references in Shakespeare's oeuvre, including two long poems. In addition, Asimov makes some interesting scholarly inferences, such as suggesting that in "Troilus And Cressida," Cressida's depiction as a worthless woman has basis in the actions of Elizabeth I at the time, when Shakespeare's patron Essex had fallen out of her favor; or claiming that in "Romeo And Juliet," the text indicates strongly that the feud was not as important to either side as Juliet made it out to be, and that only her youthful love of furtive romance made things more complicated than they should have been. This book is incredibly informative and well-written.
four stars
Friday, November 24, 1995
Three Plays: Blithe Spirit, Hay Fever, Private Lives
by Noel Coward
1941, 1925, 1930
This volume included a humorous intro by Edward Albee.
"Blithe Spirit." I hadn't read any Coward before, and had a notion his work would be laugh-out-loud funny, like Wodehouse's, but I found this play, although extremely literate and witty, wasn't as risible as that. It concerns a man whose first wife, after a seance, reappears to plague him and his second wife. Then the latter dies, too, remanifests, and his life becomes somewhat exasperating. A jolly good plot and all, but I can't help feeling that it could have been more exuberant, if, say, it had detailed the catfighting of the two dead women, or spent more time on them deciding after death that they were pals and that Charles, the hero, was the cad. And the ending was too sudden and – a glaring omission– totally unexplained. An enjoyable, witty play, and one with clever innuendo, but I don't see its "classic" reputation, as it seems so flawed.
"Hay Fever." This one was, I thought, funnier than the first, but perhaps less witty. It concerned a very bohemian, theatrical and artsy family that bordered on the dysfunctional without actually ever going beyond mere theatrics, instantly forgetting all strife moments after it begins. The family's guests for the weekend are all horrified. It was funny, but it all lead up to a reaction – such as the guests plotting a kind of revenge on the family that used them as theatrical foils – that never came. I suppose in 1925 the personas of the family were novel enough to carry the play. Also flawed, but also comic and fun.
"Private Lives." About a divorced couple who both remarry and happen to meet again on their simultaneous honeymoons, and then run off together. They fight horribly, and seem to cause their respective second spouses to quarrel just as horribly, and seem to find it amusing. Rather an unpleasant little work, but mildly amusing in parts.
three stars
1941, 1925, 1930
This volume included a humorous intro by Edward Albee.
"Blithe Spirit." I hadn't read any Coward before, and had a notion his work would be laugh-out-loud funny, like Wodehouse's, but I found this play, although extremely literate and witty, wasn't as risible as that. It concerns a man whose first wife, after a seance, reappears to plague him and his second wife. Then the latter dies, too, remanifests, and his life becomes somewhat exasperating. A jolly good plot and all, but I can't help feeling that it could have been more exuberant, if, say, it had detailed the catfighting of the two dead women, or spent more time on them deciding after death that they were pals and that Charles, the hero, was the cad. And the ending was too sudden and – a glaring omission– totally unexplained. An enjoyable, witty play, and one with clever innuendo, but I don't see its "classic" reputation, as it seems so flawed.
"Hay Fever." This one was, I thought, funnier than the first, but perhaps less witty. It concerned a very bohemian, theatrical and artsy family that bordered on the dysfunctional without actually ever going beyond mere theatrics, instantly forgetting all strife moments after it begins. The family's guests for the weekend are all horrified. It was funny, but it all lead up to a reaction – such as the guests plotting a kind of revenge on the family that used them as theatrical foils – that never came. I suppose in 1925 the personas of the family were novel enough to carry the play. Also flawed, but also comic and fun.
"Private Lives." About a divorced couple who both remarry and happen to meet again on their simultaneous honeymoons, and then run off together. They fight horribly, and seem to cause their respective second spouses to quarrel just as horribly, and seem to find it amusing. Rather an unpleasant little work, but mildly amusing in parts.
three stars
Tuesday, October 17, 1995
Crime And Punishment
by Fyodor Dostoyevsky
1866
translated by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky
This edition is hailed as the best translation ever, and the two have done many other Dostoevsky works. There was also a very perspicuous introduction by Pevear which analyzed some of the more vague passages, and the whole was annotated, all of which helped my understanding immensely. Just one minor example: knowing that Raskolnikov is named after "raskolnik," meaning schismatic, sheds quite a bit of light of Dostoevsky's intention in laying out his character. I would have to say that the novel is one of the best I've ever read. I began it many months ago, with long breaks between beginning and finishing it, which is probably not the best way to read such a complex book, but there it is. The novel has at least three plots and many levels of meaning. It doesn't just deal with a murder and a detective's psychological intimidation of Raskolnikov: Dostoevsky's characters offer opinions on the issues of the day, they embrace ideologies that were in vogue at the time, parodying them simply by the nature of their own personas; there are romances; other deaths; two methodical, selfish villains; symbolism through dream and vision; and so on. The author laughs at reason, nature and law. Reason fails Raskolnikov and doesn't help Porfiry, the detective. Everyone makes his own plan, carves out his own existence and scoffs at precedent. This existentialism is not certain; it helps Porfiry, but fails Raskolnikov, and drives Svidrigailov, the lecher who attempts to conquer Roskolnikov's sister, to suicide. A great, towering, multi-layered book, one that I will have to read again in the future.
five stars
1866
translated by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky
This edition is hailed as the best translation ever, and the two have done many other Dostoevsky works. There was also a very perspicuous introduction by Pevear which analyzed some of the more vague passages, and the whole was annotated, all of which helped my understanding immensely. Just one minor example: knowing that Raskolnikov is named after "raskolnik," meaning schismatic, sheds quite a bit of light of Dostoevsky's intention in laying out his character. I would have to say that the novel is one of the best I've ever read. I began it many months ago, with long breaks between beginning and finishing it, which is probably not the best way to read such a complex book, but there it is. The novel has at least three plots and many levels of meaning. It doesn't just deal with a murder and a detective's psychological intimidation of Raskolnikov: Dostoevsky's characters offer opinions on the issues of the day, they embrace ideologies that were in vogue at the time, parodying them simply by the nature of their own personas; there are romances; other deaths; two methodical, selfish villains; symbolism through dream and vision; and so on. The author laughs at reason, nature and law. Reason fails Raskolnikov and doesn't help Porfiry, the detective. Everyone makes his own plan, carves out his own existence and scoffs at precedent. This existentialism is not certain; it helps Porfiry, but fails Raskolnikov, and drives Svidrigailov, the lecher who attempts to conquer Roskolnikov's sister, to suicide. A great, towering, multi-layered book, one that I will have to read again in the future.
five stars
Friday, September 15, 1995
Shakespeare: His Life, His Language, His Theater
by Samuel Schoenbaum
While a bit jumpily written and at times vague or awkward, this was a fascinating book. Although relatively short, it contains a wealth of fascinating nuggets like the complete reversal of the meanings of some words ("deer," "girl," "let") since Shakespeare's time; a quick background on other dramtic works, like the mysteries, moralities, the work of Marlowe, Kyd and Greene; and many astute comments on and facts about the plays themselves. I haven't thought about any of this material since my 12th-grade Shakespeare class and found it utterly absorbing. The book had a good balance of background explanation and focused detail. Also, it was quite readable, despite the stylistic murkiness; it didn't bog down in scholarly jargon, at least.
four stars
While a bit jumpily written and at times vague or awkward, this was a fascinating book. Although relatively short, it contains a wealth of fascinating nuggets like the complete reversal of the meanings of some words ("deer," "girl," "let") since Shakespeare's time; a quick background on other dramtic works, like the mysteries, moralities, the work of Marlowe, Kyd and Greene; and many astute comments on and facts about the plays themselves. I haven't thought about any of this material since my 12th-grade Shakespeare class and found it utterly absorbing. The book had a good balance of background explanation and focused detail. Also, it was quite readable, despite the stylistic murkiness; it didn't bog down in scholarly jargon, at least.
four stars
Saturday, September 2, 1995
Full Moon
by P.G. Wodehouse
1947
Crazy doings at Blandings Castle. A typically Wodehousian romp, supremely well written and extremely funny. The acme of hilarity for me was when Blister was apprehended as a burglar by the centenarian pig man Edwin Pott. The final wrap-up was a little bit too quick and easy (as is Wodehouse's wont) but right up to that point it was non-stop ha-ha.
four stars
1947
Crazy doings at Blandings Castle. A typically Wodehousian romp, supremely well written and extremely funny. The acme of hilarity for me was when Blister was apprehended as a burglar by the centenarian pig man Edwin Pott. The final wrap-up was a little bit too quick and easy (as is Wodehouse's wont) but right up to that point it was non-stop ha-ha.
four stars
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)