This weekend has been full of Romantic Movies. I've really enjoyed all of them. Here's the list:
P.S. I do not even try to understand why the videos in this post look so wonkey. But I give up trying to fix it.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Romantic Weekend
P.S. I do not even try to understand why the videos in this post look so wonkey. But I give up trying to fix it.
Shoot Out (1971)
Clay Lomax (Gregory Peck), a bank robber, gets out of jail after an 8 year sentence. He is looking after Sam Foley, the man who betrayed him. Knowing that, Foley hires three men to pay attention of Clay's steps. The things get complicated when Lomax, waiting to receive some money from his ex-lover, gets only the notice of her death and an 8 year old girl, sometimes very annoying, presumed to be his daughter. --From IMDb
The kid is cute; the power of a little girl to turn a bad guy good.
Find at IMDb here.
The kid is cute; the power of a little girl to turn a bad guy good.
Find at IMDb here.
Another Film Dump
Here's another mass posting of the movies I've been watching. More romance and I really enjoyed them all.
The Time Traveler's Wife
Yeah, I didn't cry. I guess it is a sad story, but not very tragic. I mean, they had plenty of time to deal with what happens, so no shock factor. Still, good story: different.
Leap Year
I really liked this story. Silly and there were parts that I would cut (as a clutz, I dislike watching clutzs). But who can hate a movie with a really cute Irish (okay, he's really English, faking the accent) guy?!? I'm definitely a lover of "Belligerant Sexual Tension".
The Notebook
Made me cry--like tears not stopping cry. I know the reason for it--my great-grandmother had alzheimers and my grandma told me what it was like to go visit her and not be recognized. It must be 1000X worse when it's your spouse. I also include my whole track record with guys where, well, I haven't been noticed like that. So maybe I'm also afraid that I'll never have someone to grow old with--and I'm only 22. Please feel free to make jokes about a Jane Austen book where 20 is "nearly an old maid". Anywho...yeah. Great film if you're okay with crying and stuff like that.
P.S. If you didn't know, both James Gardner and Gena Rowlands (they play the older versions of the main characters)are/were married only once and for life. Gardner married his sweetheart after only knowing her 2 weeks. Wow.
P.S. If you didn't know, both James Gardner and Gena Rowlands (they play the older versions of the main characters)are/were married only once and for life. Gardner married his sweetheart after only knowing her 2 weeks. Wow.
The Mao Case by Qiu Xiaolong
I'm currently reading this book by Qiu Xiaolong. It's most likely banned in China because of the bad light it puts on Mao.
It's one of a few books (I'm not sure how many exactly) in the "Inspector Chen Novel" series. I heard from someone in my class that this author is popular in China, just that this book is most likely banned--I feel sorry for those waiting for the next book in this series since they obviously won't be getting it.
The dedication tells a lot about this book: "For the people that suffered under Mao".
Other fiction books written by this author (which I plan to read eventually) are:
Death of the Red Heroine
A Loyal Character Dancer
When Red is Black
A Case of Two Cities
Red Mandarin Dress
Poetry Translations are:
Evoking Tang: An Anthology of Classical Chinese Poetry
100 Poems from Tang and Song Dynasties
Treasury of Chinese Love Poems
Original Poetry is:
Lines Around China
It's one of a few books (I'm not sure how many exactly) in the "Inspector Chen Novel" series. I heard from someone in my class that this author is popular in China, just that this book is most likely banned--I feel sorry for those waiting for the next book in this series since they obviously won't be getting it.
The dedication tells a lot about this book: "For the people that suffered under Mao".
Other fiction books written by this author (which I plan to read eventually) are:
Death of the Red Heroine
A Loyal Character Dancer
When Red is Black
A Case of Two Cities
Red Mandarin Dress
Poetry Translations are:
Evoking Tang: An Anthology of Classical Chinese Poetry
100 Poems from Tang and Song Dynasties
Treasury of Chinese Love Poems
Original Poetry is:
Lines Around China
Twilight (and Friends) by Stephenie Meyer
By "friends" I mean the rest of the series. I read them last year and it took me about 2 weeks to read all 4.
Ehh...they weren't really my type of book, but I found them to be a good enough read. It fits well in the teen romance genre (which I have enough of a bone to pick with)--girl meets boy, girl falls in love with boy, girl can't be with boy. It was pretty predictable over all.
However, the cult that came from it scares me. The part where Edward leaves Bella to save her life, I fear leaves girls with a misguided sense of male/female relations. Girls these days already have enough issues about being single that giving them hope that when a guy dumps them it is for an altruistic reason is detremental to society. Maybe if Bella and Edward were 30 and sensible the message would be better, but as an impressionable 15 year old (the age group this book is aimed towards) these books don't send a positive message. I've decided that they deserve a PG-25 rating (mental age of course) and I RARELY rate books and movies.
As for the movie (Twilight), I must be crazy because when it came to the way Edward was portrayed, I thought they did it fine. When I read the book, I felt that Edward was very unsure of himself and timid--just as he was in the movie. He leaving in book 2 and his actions in the final 2 books BOTH show that he wasn't comfortable with his situation and would rather crawl into a hole and die. I'm not sure why so many folks I talked to thought that Edward had been ruined--I thought Robert Pattinson's portrayal was dead on. Maybe this is a indicator that girls were viewing Edward as the "Knight in Shining Armor" willing to face down anything for the woman he loves and is afraid of nothing. The first might be true, but the latter, definitely NOT.
Anyway, this is my opinion on this book. I'll probably be putting my copies up for sale in the coming months (they're at home right now while I'm at school). It's not something that I'll be reading again any time soon. But go ahead and read it for yourself--like I said, it wasn't my type of book to begin with--it would already have been a one time read before I started.
Ehh...they weren't really my type of book, but I found them to be a good enough read. It fits well in the teen romance genre (which I have enough of a bone to pick with)--girl meets boy, girl falls in love with boy, girl can't be with boy. It was pretty predictable over all.
However, the cult that came from it scares me. The part where Edward leaves Bella to save her life, I fear leaves girls with a misguided sense of male/female relations. Girls these days already have enough issues about being single that giving them hope that when a guy dumps them it is for an altruistic reason is detremental to society. Maybe if Bella and Edward were 30 and sensible the message would be better, but as an impressionable 15 year old (the age group this book is aimed towards) these books don't send a positive message. I've decided that they deserve a PG-25 rating (mental age of course) and I RARELY rate books and movies.
As for the movie (Twilight), I must be crazy because when it came to the way Edward was portrayed, I thought they did it fine. When I read the book, I felt that Edward was very unsure of himself and timid--just as he was in the movie. He leaving in book 2 and his actions in the final 2 books BOTH show that he wasn't comfortable with his situation and would rather crawl into a hole and die. I'm not sure why so many folks I talked to thought that Edward had been ruined--I thought Robert Pattinson's portrayal was dead on. Maybe this is a indicator that girls were viewing Edward as the "Knight in Shining Armor" willing to face down anything for the woman he loves and is afraid of nothing. The first might be true, but the latter, definitely NOT.
Anyway, this is my opinion on this book. I'll probably be putting my copies up for sale in the coming months (they're at home right now while I'm at school). It's not something that I'll be reading again any time soon. But go ahead and read it for yourself--like I said, it wasn't my type of book to begin with--it would already have been a one time read before I started.
Catch 22 by Joseph Heller
OMG!! I LOVED this book!! I read it back in 10th grade for English class and had to do a pretty big project on it--it was 3 short essays written from various perspectives from the book--the author, a judge or jury, and someone else. I've never been that great at English, so I was ecstatic when I got my grade back--3 100%s. I had to present in front of the class, so of course, this very shy, tiny girl chose to speak from the perspective of the author--who in my mind was a VERY crabby 60, or so, year old grandfather type (looking much like the old man in "UP" with a personality to match Mr. Wilson from the Dennis the Menace comics) who was doing a book tour in all the schools--giving the real horrors of war to a bunch of snot nosed brats who spend all their time being coddled. It was SOOO much fun! But I guess that really has nothing to do with the actual content of the book, just how I was affected by it.
Umm...gosh. It'll definitely make anyone who reads it anti-war, probably, and really question the sanity of the whole military system as a whole. But in a good way. It really makes you think. But I've heard a lot of bad reviews from classmates that hated it. We were given the choice between 4 or 5 books for that project and I think that I was the only person to choose Catch 22. But these are 16 year olds that I might have used as inspiration for why Heller had to write his book and why I envisioned his character was furious at the world--boys scarcely 2 years older than those I addressed, dying in war, and a classroom full of teens today who couldn't care less, let alone take the time to understand what he was trying to say. This is probably the one book (I know I shall say this many times) that I think EVERYONE should read. No seriously--it's on my 1 book, 1 movie, 1 object that everyone should read/own list. Also on this list are "All Quiet on the Western Front" (the movie) and a small row/paddle boat (canoe, kayak, rowboat, etc) since sea levels are rising and I live on the coast--some places flood pretty badly once ever 10 years.
Umm...gosh. It'll definitely make anyone who reads it anti-war, probably, and really question the sanity of the whole military system as a whole. But in a good way. It really makes you think. But I've heard a lot of bad reviews from classmates that hated it. We were given the choice between 4 or 5 books for that project and I think that I was the only person to choose Catch 22. But these are 16 year olds that I might have used as inspiration for why Heller had to write his book and why I envisioned his character was furious at the world--boys scarcely 2 years older than those I addressed, dying in war, and a classroom full of teens today who couldn't care less, let alone take the time to understand what he was trying to say. This is probably the one book (I know I shall say this many times) that I think EVERYONE should read. No seriously--it's on my 1 book, 1 movie, 1 object that everyone should read/own list. Also on this list are "All Quiet on the Western Front" (the movie) and a small row/paddle boat (canoe, kayak, rowboat, etc) since sea levels are rising and I live on the coast--some places flood pretty badly once ever 10 years.
Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen
I honestly thought I was going to hate this book. My 12th grade English Lit teacher introduced it as the book most likely do be disliked by the guys in the class. Now, as you've probably read my "review" of the Twilight "saga" you know that chick books aren't really my thing. Yes, I like a bit of romance, but I want it to be secondary--to complement the plot and to explain some of the inter-character relations, but NOT to drive the story as Twilight does. So, when I heard that this would be a chick book I was a little leery.
But I was pleasantly surprised. This book definitely deserves "classic" status. It's again one of those books that everyone should read, especially if they themselves wonder why they can't relate to the people around them. There is definitely a character for everyone in this book and I'm curious as to who readers best relate with.
I personally thought this book to be a pretty easy read, but I have a friend who found it difficult (i.e. boring--I've found the two go hand in hand). To this I will say that there is no way on Earth for me to know whether someone will like or dislike a particular book. I mean, I hated Heart of Darkness the first time I had to read it and quite enjoyed it the second time. My general rule of thumb for any book is to pick it up every 5 years or so--the change in perspective you get from age will change the way the book will read, possibly even making a book that you hated in high school interesting.
I just watched Becoming Jane (2007). I thought it was extremely good and, at least in the context of Pride and Prejudice, it makes sense, whether or not it's historically accurate. It's so sweet and sad...I highly recommend it, especially if your complaint about the ending of Pride and Prejudice was that it was too good to be true.
But I was pleasantly surprised. This book definitely deserves "classic" status. It's again one of those books that everyone should read, especially if they themselves wonder why they can't relate to the people around them. There is definitely a character for everyone in this book and I'm curious as to who readers best relate with.
I personally thought this book to be a pretty easy read, but I have a friend who found it difficult (i.e. boring--I've found the two go hand in hand). To this I will say that there is no way on Earth for me to know whether someone will like or dislike a particular book. I mean, I hated Heart of Darkness the first time I had to read it and quite enjoyed it the second time. My general rule of thumb for any book is to pick it up every 5 years or so--the change in perspective you get from age will change the way the book will read, possibly even making a book that you hated in high school interesting.
I just watched Becoming Jane (2007). I thought it was extremely good and, at least in the context of Pride and Prejudice, it makes sense, whether or not it's historically accurate. It's so sweet and sad...I highly recommend it, especially if your complaint about the ending of Pride and Prejudice was that it was too good to be true.
Anne of Green Gables by L.M. Montgomery
Another book that I love. Such a sweet story. The whole series is terrific, though there are some very sad parts, just enough to make for a very realistic story. Definitely a coming of age story, and suitable for any 10 year old girl (or 10 year old girl at heart).
There are about 8 books total in the series. I'm only going to list the 1st here, though.
There are about 8 books total in the series. I'm only going to list the 1st here, though.
Emily of New Moon by L.M. Montgomery
1st off...they made a tv show out of this?!?!? Seriously, that's news to me. But I can't give judgment about it without seeing it for myself, so let me know if it's any good.
I thought this book/series was rather good. It's about a young orphan girl who is raised by her strict aunts. Unfortunately, I didn't remember how sad the beginning of the book is when I decided to re-read it over the summer. But once I got past that part, I remembered that for the most part, just as with Anne of Green Gables, the story is primarily a happy one--or at least, not one of total sadness.
Great for girls who are growing up and changing, or anyone who needs a little more imagination in their life. In comparison to Anne of Green Gables, there is more imagination by the heroine, at least initially. Or at least that's my impression, especially with the 1st books.
I thought this book/series was rather good. It's about a young orphan girl who is raised by her strict aunts. Unfortunately, I didn't remember how sad the beginning of the book is when I decided to re-read it over the summer. But once I got past that part, I remembered that for the most part, just as with Anne of Green Gables, the story is primarily a happy one--or at least, not one of total sadness.
Great for girls who are growing up and changing, or anyone who needs a little more imagination in their life. In comparison to Anne of Green Gables, there is more imagination by the heroine, at least initially. Or at least that's my impression, especially with the 1st books.
Not sure what to title this as.
I mean, it's not just one book and the author is just as important as the books. So, please read this article and then put these books on your reading list--they're on mine.
Socialism in Provence 1871-1914: A Study in the Origins of the Modern French Left
I could probably go on with books!! I wish I had more time to read after seeing some of these titles.
Bedknob and Broomstick
Just knocking another book off my list--I want to read every book/story that classic Disney movies are based on. I'm not sure which ones are left, but I just bought 101 Dalmatians which has been at the top of the list for about 8 years. I didn't even realize that "Bedknob and Broomstick" was on the list until I found it on the shelf at camp this summer. It's only half like the movie that we all know and love, but still was an excellent book. I decided to go ahead and link to the movie too, in case that it isn't one that you know.
Madame Curie
A surprisingly entertaining book about the life and work of Marie Curie. I admit that I didn't finish this book at camp because the chapter on the death of her husband (sorry to spoil the plot) left me feeling sad and depressed--I wasn't expecting that, especially since it's written by her daughter Eve. This biography will interest any history buff, science nerd, or anyone who's interested in turn of the century family life from Poland to France.
"The Thirteenth Tale" By Diane Setterfield
Well, I honestly started out not really feeling the content of this book. There were a few themes that I am not a big fan of, but that didn't stop me from picking this book up whenever I could to read more. I ended up finishing it at 4am, something I honestly haven't done with a book in a number of years. I highly recommend it; which 4 days ago wouldn't have been the case.
Assassin's Apprentice by Robin Hobb
"Tell this to King Shrewd. Our population grows, but there is a limit to our arable soil. Wild game will only feed so many. Comes a time when a country must open itself to trade, especially so rocky and mountainous a country as mine. You have heard, perhaps, that the Jhaampe way is that the ruler is the servant of his people? Well, I serve them in this wise. I marry my beloved younger sister away, in the hopes of winning grain and trade routes and lowland goods for my people, and grazing rights in the cold part of the year when our pastures are under snow. For this, too, I am willing to give you timbers, the great straight timbers that Verity will need to build his warships. Our mountains grow white oak such as you have never seen. This is a thing my father would refuse. He has the old feelings about the cutting of live trees, And like Regal, he sees your coast as a liability, your ocean as a great barrier. But I see it as your father did--a wide road that leads in all directions, and your coast as our access to it. And I see no offense in using trees uprooted by the annual floods and windstorms."
Very few times do you find a fiction novel like this that makes you really understand what it means to live in the real world...or at least one that I'll actually enjoy reading. A lot of attempts are made, I guess, focusing on the problems invasions by foreigners, but few go further to be viewed through the eyes of a bastard son of the crown prince turned assassin for the king, his grandfather. I mean, you can get a number of ideas about the world we live in just by judging how well the kingdom's ambassadors do their job of actually knowing the people they are visiting...and the importance of information and allies.
I highly rate this 1st book in the series.
Very few times do you find a fiction novel like this that makes you really understand what it means to live in the real world...or at least one that I'll actually enjoy reading. A lot of attempts are made, I guess, focusing on the problems invasions by foreigners, but few go further to be viewed through the eyes of a bastard son of the crown prince turned assassin for the king, his grandfather. I mean, you can get a number of ideas about the world we live in just by judging how well the kingdom's ambassadors do their job of actually knowing the people they are visiting...and the importance of information and allies.
I highly rate this 1st book in the series.
Movies
The Princess Diaries 2--I thought it was an excellent movie. I've never read the books and from what I saw on wikipedia, I doubt that I'll ever read them, but maybe I will...not sure yet. Anyway. The movie was extremely cute. I've only watched the 1st one once and I thought it was nice, but a bit...outlandish, I guess. I mean, what else can you think about the story where a girl with no importance turns out to be a real princess? So I treat it as being totally removed from 2, which makes them both the better movie, I think. But the second movie is the tale of a princess fighting the oppressive law that states that she must marry if she wishes to be queen. The storyline is great (many of my favorite fiction novels have had a similar plot) and the choice in cast is amazing--I love Julie Andrews and her chemistry with Anne Hathaway as her granddaughter is awesome--much like my grandmother with myself. I highly recommend this movie whether or not you've seen the 1st one, and I think the letter 2 following the title is a bit misleading.
The Queen is a very good movie describing the royal family in the days following Princess Diana's death. I love the way Queen Elizabeth II is portrayed, as the private woman who's 1st priority is her grandsons and maintaining the decorum of the royal post. I don't remember 1997 much myself, but I think I do remember the whole privateness of the situation...how the queen was slow to react and reluctant to bend to the public will. Which is her right as a human. The queen is a woman who was given a title with her birth. Her life is a private thing. Just because she was forced into the spotlight doesn't give the public the right to pry. And that's what the movie tries to show, I think. We complain about young hollywood basking and abusing the spotlight and abuses committed by the paparazzi, but when it comes to the queen we expect total openness. The same is true of America's president. We forget that when it comes down to it they are made of the same flesh and blood that we all are made of and deserve the same courtesies that we demand in the private sphere.
The Queen is a very good movie describing the royal family in the days following Princess Diana's death. I love the way Queen Elizabeth II is portrayed, as the private woman who's 1st priority is her grandsons and maintaining the decorum of the royal post. I don't remember 1997 much myself, but I think I do remember the whole privateness of the situation...how the queen was slow to react and reluctant to bend to the public will. Which is her right as a human. The queen is a woman who was given a title with her birth. Her life is a private thing. Just because she was forced into the spotlight doesn't give the public the right to pry. And that's what the movie tries to show, I think. We complain about young hollywood basking and abusing the spotlight and abuses committed by the paparazzi, but when it comes to the queen we expect total openness. The same is true of America's president. We forget that when it comes down to it they are made of the same flesh and blood that we all are made of and deserve the same courtesies that we demand in the private sphere.
"Women's Diaries of the Westward Journey" by Lillian Schlissel
Women's Diaries of the Westward Journey is an amazingly interesting book, with a few drawbacks that may or may not take away from its importance. I'll let you decide.
This book is essentially tracing the women's journey across the midwest to California and Oregon using the diaries that these women kept and left behind. Schlissel uses 96 diaries to defend her conclusions, and as one can expect that the journey wasn't entirely different for these women. There are some differences, as the circumstances of women differed--being married with children, newly wed without children, being older with children back home, etc, but the scenery doesn't change that much. This is where I find the drawback--the book is really repetitive. I understand why, but it can still be tedious. But once you overlook this, there's a lot of important information to be found. And a lot of questions that you can ask about women living on the road and those things that we women have to deal with that men will probably never understand.
Even with the repetitiveness, it's a very quick read--I think I spent 3 hours reading 150 pages before class, not sure how much time I've spent since to finish it. And it's a very visual book--you should be able to vividly picture the world that these women traveled through.
This book is essentially tracing the women's journey across the midwest to California and Oregon using the diaries that these women kept and left behind. Schlissel uses 96 diaries to defend her conclusions, and as one can expect that the journey wasn't entirely different for these women. There are some differences, as the circumstances of women differed--being married with children, newly wed without children, being older with children back home, etc, but the scenery doesn't change that much. This is where I find the drawback--the book is really repetitive. I understand why, but it can still be tedious. But once you overlook this, there's a lot of important information to be found. And a lot of questions that you can ask about women living on the road and those things that we women have to deal with that men will probably never understand.
Even with the repetitiveness, it's a very quick read--I think I spent 3 hours reading 150 pages before class, not sure how much time I've spent since to finish it. And it's a very visual book--you should be able to vividly picture the world that these women traveled through.
"Christmas After All" by Kathryn Lasky
Well, I thought this was a very enjoyable, informative tale describing life in 1932 in the weeks leading up to Christmas. Yes, it's written for 5th graders. And yes, it's historical fiction. But I look at books as a way to get kids interested in the past...including awesome pop culture, which this book does a great job of doing. There's a few spots where I'm not sure of the historical accuracy--Hitler is mentioned along with the fact that his party was gaining influence. But it's also mentioned that the US knew that they had a thing against the Jews. I don't know how public that information was in 1932. But I consider this a minor problem in a book who's sole importance for me is not in teaching history, but in getting kids interested in history. I love the inclusion of the main character, later in life, becoming a member of the WASPs and the fact that they didn't get formal recognition until 1991. Take that anti-revision history people--textbooks written 20 years ago wouldn't have even acknowledged the WASPs! So which book does a better job of teaching history? but I digress there. Sorry.
Hand this book to your 10 year old. Boys may or may not like it. I will warn you that there are 3 mentions of the fact that the friend of the main characters father killed himself by blasting his head off with a shotgun. I thought that when it happened in the story it was a bit shocking, but at least was vague enough for the naive reader--but later the character is quite blunt about the blasting. Just a warning, but as with everything, you should be reading what your kids are reading, know what they're watching, who their friends are. It's your judgment that matters--you know your kid.
Hand this book to your 10 year old. Boys may or may not like it. I will warn you that there are 3 mentions of the fact that the friend of the main characters father killed himself by blasting his head off with a shotgun. I thought that when it happened in the story it was a bit shocking, but at least was vague enough for the naive reader--but later the character is quite blunt about the blasting. Just a warning, but as with everything, you should be reading what your kids are reading, know what they're watching, who their friends are. It's your judgment that matters--you know your kid.
"Wolf Tower" by Tanith Lee
It was an an okay short read, for me. But then I'm probably a freak of nature when it comes to reading. In this book's case I was reading faster than I could comprehend the words and nothing was there to stop me. I guess it's only to be expected in a book intended for younger audiences, but normally I don't have such problems. Maybe it's because I'm tired. I can't really say. But the story is very good--I quite enjoyed the plot and the fairy tale romance is extremely cute, I think. Simplistic, but again, look at the audience. I'm game for the rest of the series, though who knows when I'll get around to reading them.
"Murder at Fenway Park" By Troy Soos
I love this book. There, I said it. And I'll probably say it about a lot of books. And I'm fine with that.
So, we have very old fashioned baseball (it's 1912) and a murder entrenched in the not quite so idealistic world of old fashioned baseball. And it's written by a guy who's a member of the Society for American Baseball Research, so it's not like he's pulling his information from the center of left field (pun intended). What is there not to love?!??!
Plus (there's always a plus in my most loved books) there are a few anecdotes scattered throughout the novel that just make a person like me that loves history and especially tracing things through time (and if you've read my other blog "Daily Dose" you've probably heard me complain about a bunch of certain misconceptions used by the media when it comes to history [cough: Fox News/Conservatives]). Anywho. You have to remember that this is historical fiction, but I think I've taken enough history courses to be able to definitively say that your imagination is often better than a history book to explain societal relations. But I digress. Here's a few snap shots of these "pluses" in action:
"The game remained scoreless into the top of the ninth inning. And that's when I figured out how Hal Chase did it.
Jake Stahl hit a grounder to third to open our half of the inning, and I kept my eyes on Chase from the moment the bat made contact. While the ball skipped to the third baseman, Chase stayed anchored well off the first base bag. Then just before the ball was fielded, he broke for the base. When the third baseman's throw arrived, Chase was hustling as hard as he could to take the throw at first--but his initial delay ensured that he wouldn't be in time to catch the ball cleanly. The son of a bitch. He was really throwing the game.
Yesterday, with the sight of a dead man still fresh in my eyes, I would have thought that murder was the most heinous of crimes. But now I'd seen Hal Chase try to throw a baseball game. It was an offense that seemed worse than murder--a crime less gruesome, but a sacrilege more sinister."
"By our second week back in Boston, with Peggy still on Cape Cod, I started to read the newspapers. Any page without box scores on it was unfamiliar territory to me, but I decided to explore the news sections and find out what was going on in the world--not due to any sudden interest in international affairs, but because I thought it would give me more to talk about with Peggy
Since the presidential nominating conventions were coming up, it seemed a good time to start following the campaigns. I read about the opening of the Republican convention in Chicago, expecting it would be straightforward and easy to understand. I assumed that President Taft would automatically be nominated to head the Republican ticket again. But then Teddy Roosevelt's followers got mad at Taft's nomination by what they called "conservatives" and went off to form a "Progressive Party." Great--just when I start to follow politics, they complicate it by forming a third party. Well, at least it's supposed to go smoothly with the Democrats; according to the papers, Champ Clark is an easy winner for the nomination. Not that it mattered--I wouldn't be old enough to vote yet."
Then of course, you can just marvel at the type of man Mickey Rawlings is, to accept his life as a utility player, never destined for stardom. This book is awesome. It's the first in a series of currently, I believe, 5 such mystery books. I've read 2 or 3 others and loved them just as much. It's fun since this is the 1st in the series to see where he started out at, because here he meets his long time friends (when I met them) (and oh what a meeting that was), and when I read his books he was quite a few years older and no longer the "rookie" player. Of course I'll link up to as many as I can find, hopefully in order.
I hope you enjoy these as much as I've enjoyed them. And maybe you'll be like me and REALLY want to read the biography of a certain Ty Cobb, haha.
So, we have very old fashioned baseball (it's 1912) and a murder entrenched in the not quite so idealistic world of old fashioned baseball. And it's written by a guy who's a member of the Society for American Baseball Research, so it's not like he's pulling his information from the center of left field (pun intended). What is there not to love?!??!
Plus (there's always a plus in my most loved books) there are a few anecdotes scattered throughout the novel that just make a person like me that loves history and especially tracing things through time (and if you've read my other blog "Daily Dose" you've probably heard me complain about a bunch of certain misconceptions used by the media when it comes to history [cough: Fox News/Conservatives]). Anywho. You have to remember that this is historical fiction, but I think I've taken enough history courses to be able to definitively say that your imagination is often better than a history book to explain societal relations. But I digress. Here's a few snap shots of these "pluses" in action:
"The game remained scoreless into the top of the ninth inning. And that's when I figured out how Hal Chase did it.
Jake Stahl hit a grounder to third to open our half of the inning, and I kept my eyes on Chase from the moment the bat made contact. While the ball skipped to the third baseman, Chase stayed anchored well off the first base bag. Then just before the ball was fielded, he broke for the base. When the third baseman's throw arrived, Chase was hustling as hard as he could to take the throw at first--but his initial delay ensured that he wouldn't be in time to catch the ball cleanly. The son of a bitch. He was really throwing the game.
Yesterday, with the sight of a dead man still fresh in my eyes, I would have thought that murder was the most heinous of crimes. But now I'd seen Hal Chase try to throw a baseball game. It was an offense that seemed worse than murder--a crime less gruesome, but a sacrilege more sinister."
"By our second week back in Boston, with Peggy still on Cape Cod, I started to read the newspapers. Any page without box scores on it was unfamiliar territory to me, but I decided to explore the news sections and find out what was going on in the world--not due to any sudden interest in international affairs, but because I thought it would give me more to talk about with Peggy
Since the presidential nominating conventions were coming up, it seemed a good time to start following the campaigns. I read about the opening of the Republican convention in Chicago, expecting it would be straightforward and easy to understand. I assumed that President Taft would automatically be nominated to head the Republican ticket again. But then Teddy Roosevelt's followers got mad at Taft's nomination by what they called "conservatives" and went off to form a "Progressive Party." Great--just when I start to follow politics, they complicate it by forming a third party. Well, at least it's supposed to go smoothly with the Democrats; according to the papers, Champ Clark is an easy winner for the nomination. Not that it mattered--I wouldn't be old enough to vote yet."
Then of course, you can just marvel at the type of man Mickey Rawlings is, to accept his life as a utility player, never destined for stardom. This book is awesome. It's the first in a series of currently, I believe, 5 such mystery books. I've read 2 or 3 others and loved them just as much. It's fun since this is the 1st in the series to see where he started out at, because here he meets his long time friends (when I met them) (and oh what a meeting that was), and when I read his books he was quite a few years older and no longer the "rookie" player. Of course I'll link up to as many as I can find, hopefully in order.
I hope you enjoy these as much as I've enjoyed them. And maybe you'll be like me and REALLY want to read the biography of a certain Ty Cobb, haha.
The Twilight Samurai
Amazing visualization of the 1868 Japan that we're studying class. I highly recommend this movie.
Shadows on my Heart: Civil War Diary of Lucy Buck
Definitely not your typically view of the Civil War. This is the diary of a southern plantation mistress of sorts (she's a young southern daughter, not married). If nothing else, she gives a different view of the Yankees than the heroic champions of freedom that we are often taught in school. Is she biased? Of course, but that's what makes it real. You'll need to like the way Anne of Green Gables talks because this girl does have a visual way of writing like that and since it's her diary, there's no Marilla around to tell her to "shut up and get to the point" haha. So keep that in mind if you're thinking about reading this book.
Winter Break Reading
I didn't read as much over winter break as I could have, but I worked and had a ton of mail to answer. But I did get to finally finish 2 books that I started over Thanksgiving. They were The Sleeping Beauty by Mercedes Lackey and Royal Assassin by Robin Hobb. Both were, I admit, slow reading at first, but in both cases the story is well worth the time. In the case of Royal Assassin, I don't think it would be possible to write such an epic story without all the detail. I highly recommend both books.
With graduation looming only 4 months from now, I have a lot of stuff that's going to get in my way of reading, but I suspect that there will be 4 upcoming posts illustrating gender in the civil war, since that's what my history thesis will be dealing with. I'm excited to read these books.
With graduation looming only 4 months from now, I have a lot of stuff that's going to get in my way of reading, but I suspect that there will be 4 upcoming posts illustrating gender in the civil war, since that's what my history thesis will be dealing with. I'm excited to read these books.
Norfolk (and a few other Southern cities) exempt from Emancipation Proclimation
..."On September 22 [1862], Lincoln issued the preliminary proclamation of emancipation. He declared that on January 1, 1863, "all persons held as slaves within any state, or designated part of a state, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free." The proclamation stated further that the Executive "will recognize and maintain the freedom of such person, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom."
Radical as this step was in relation to the earlier policy of the administration toward slavery, Lincoln did not let it cause him to abandon his fundamental purpose--the restoration of the Union. In fact,he tried to use it to induce the rebel states to return to the Union. He began the preliminary proclamation for example, by declaring, "Hereafter, as heretofore, the war will be prossecuted [sic] for the object of practically restoring the constitutional relation between the United States, and each of the states, and the people thereof, in which states that relation is, or may be suspended, or disturbed." To this end Lincoln set forth what amounted to minimum conditions for reconstruction. He said that on January 1, 1863, the executive would designate which states were in rebellion; "and the fact that any state, or the people thereof shall, on that day be, in good faith represented in the Congress of the United States, by members chosen thereto, at elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such state shall have participated, shall in the absence of strong countervailing testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such state and the people thereof, are not then in rebellion against the United States." In this way Lincoln connected emancipation with reconstruction.
...skip a few paragraphs:
1: on how it is worth more to the states to have an election than to continue fighting the war
2: on telling military governors to hold elections ASAP and how he'd "be very glad if any Congressional District" would elect a representative"
3: on getting annoyed that "nothing had been done about congressional elections" in November in NOLA
4: on elections finally being held in December and early January in 4 states: Louisiana (7600 votes cast), Eastern VA (Norfolk, Portsmouth, Eastern Shore; 1400 votes cast), 400 votes from Western VA, North Carolina (2nd district: 864 votes cast), and Tennessee (1900 votes cast in the 9th district).
"Lincoln apparently was satisfied with these results and intent on having them accepted by Congress. This much he made clear when the question of exempting parts of the South from the effect of the Emancipation Proclamation came up at a Cabinet meeting in December. Replying to a question about the exemption of New Orleans and the surrounding area, he explained that he had promised the people there that he would exempt them if they would elect members of Congress. Salmon P. Chase interjected that while two representatives had been elected from Louisiana, "they have not yet got their seats, and it is not certain that they will." At this, according to John P. Usher, the Secretary of the Interior, Lincoln "rose from his seat, apparently irritated, and walked rapidly back and forth, across the room. Looking over his shoulder at Mr. Chase, he said: 'That it is, sir. I am to be bullied by Congress, am I? If I do, I'll be durned.' "
So anxious was Lincoln to promote reconstruction that he exempted the states in which elections had been held, even though only one of them had fulfilled the conditions outlined in the preliminary proclamation of September. The President had therein stated that for representatives to be accepted, they had to be chosen at elections in which a majority of the qualified voters had participated. Only Louisiana had met this requirement; the 7600 voters who had turned out were about half the number who had voted in the elections of 1859. Congress, furthermore, had not admitted any of the members-elect, as Lincoln had specified it should. Nevertheless, he excepted from the effect of the Emancipation Proclamation of January 1, 1863, all of Tennessee, though elections had taken place in only pone part of the state; the parishes in and around New Orleans, in Louisiana; Norfolk and the eastern-shore section of Virginia; and all forty-eight counties of West Virginia, just then on the verge of statehood, where no elections had been held"
From: "Reconstructing the Union: Theory and Policy during the Civil War"
By Herman Belz; 1969
Radical as this step was in relation to the earlier policy of the administration toward slavery, Lincoln did not let it cause him to abandon his fundamental purpose--the restoration of the Union. In fact,he tried to use it to induce the rebel states to return to the Union. He began the preliminary proclamation for example, by declaring, "Hereafter, as heretofore, the war will be prossecuted [sic] for the object of practically restoring the constitutional relation between the United States, and each of the states, and the people thereof, in which states that relation is, or may be suspended, or disturbed." To this end Lincoln set forth what amounted to minimum conditions for reconstruction. He said that on January 1, 1863, the executive would designate which states were in rebellion; "and the fact that any state, or the people thereof shall, on that day be, in good faith represented in the Congress of the United States, by members chosen thereto, at elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such state shall have participated, shall in the absence of strong countervailing testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such state and the people thereof, are not then in rebellion against the United States." In this way Lincoln connected emancipation with reconstruction.
...skip a few paragraphs:
1: on how it is worth more to the states to have an election than to continue fighting the war
2: on telling military governors to hold elections ASAP and how he'd "be very glad if any Congressional District" would elect a representative"
3: on getting annoyed that "nothing had been done about congressional elections" in November in NOLA
4: on elections finally being held in December and early January in 4 states: Louisiana (7600 votes cast), Eastern VA (Norfolk, Portsmouth, Eastern Shore; 1400 votes cast), 400 votes from Western VA, North Carolina (2nd district: 864 votes cast), and Tennessee (1900 votes cast in the 9th district).
"Lincoln apparently was satisfied with these results and intent on having them accepted by Congress. This much he made clear when the question of exempting parts of the South from the effect of the Emancipation Proclamation came up at a Cabinet meeting in December. Replying to a question about the exemption of New Orleans and the surrounding area, he explained that he had promised the people there that he would exempt them if they would elect members of Congress. Salmon P. Chase interjected that while two representatives had been elected from Louisiana, "they have not yet got their seats, and it is not certain that they will." At this, according to John P. Usher, the Secretary of the Interior, Lincoln "rose from his seat, apparently irritated, and walked rapidly back and forth, across the room. Looking over his shoulder at Mr. Chase, he said: 'That it is, sir. I am to be bullied by Congress, am I? If I do, I'll be durned.' "
So anxious was Lincoln to promote reconstruction that he exempted the states in which elections had been held, even though only one of them had fulfilled the conditions outlined in the preliminary proclamation of September. The President had therein stated that for representatives to be accepted, they had to be chosen at elections in which a majority of the qualified voters had participated. Only Louisiana had met this requirement; the 7600 voters who had turned out were about half the number who had voted in the elections of 1859. Congress, furthermore, had not admitted any of the members-elect, as Lincoln had specified it should. Nevertheless, he excepted from the effect of the Emancipation Proclamation of January 1, 1863, all of Tennessee, though elections had taken place in only pone part of the state; the parishes in and around New Orleans, in Louisiana; Norfolk and the eastern-shore section of Virginia; and all forty-eight counties of West Virginia, just then on the verge of statehood, where no elections had been held"
From: "Reconstructing the Union: Theory and Policy during the Civil War"
By Herman Belz; 1969
Sunday, March 27, 2011
The Kennedy Mini-series
I just heard about this mini-series and I wanted to share my 2 cents. I'm going to focus on "conservative history" and reality. I've spent my college years learning about history and the "new" way our story is being told. Here's what I think "revisionist" history means:
The reason why the history taught today is different than it was 30 years ago because there was a social revolution. Minorities were no longer standing by and letting the story be told by and about the old white male. As we search out these new people's histories, we're also finding a whole mess of "dirty laundry" that the white man has been hiding. It complicates things, in a good way. History is no longer some perfect ideal that seems too good to be true. Anyone who pays any attention to modern society KNOWS that life is complicated. We know what kinds of decisions go into an event. We can't turn a historical event into a soundbite--it's just not possible. If you want a shining example of this, please visit Harry Truman's Presidential Library and Museum. The main exhibit there literally puts you into his shoes, giving you the information that he had and asking you "what would you do" when it comes to dropping the a-bomb. I have put this museum on the top of my vacation list.
Back to the Kennedy mini-series issue, there is debate about whether political leanings were involved. The History Channel claims that there are issues with historical accuracy and the main producer claims that it's because of his conservative leanings. I say that the truth is somewhere in between. I haven't studied conservative responses to Kennedy and he's old enough that people that were liberal back then would have turned conservative now. So I'm left to speculate. Since there are no obviously outrageous secrets spilled (according to some insider who's seen the series), I assume that the exact opposite is true. I think that the series shows too nice of a story of the Kennedys. There is that question about Marilyn Monroe and maybe they show a historically inaccurate account of this. Maybe their take on the Bay of Pigs is inaccurate. Maybe they focus too much on speculating on the personal life--more than can accurately be known. There's too many questions. Since neither Kennedys who are said to have objected to the series elected to speak, it's still only speculation as to if they are actually involved. This analysis would definitely not hold up in court.
The reason why the history taught today is different than it was 30 years ago because there was a social revolution. Minorities were no longer standing by and letting the story be told by and about the old white male. As we search out these new people's histories, we're also finding a whole mess of "dirty laundry" that the white man has been hiding. It complicates things, in a good way. History is no longer some perfect ideal that seems too good to be true. Anyone who pays any attention to modern society KNOWS that life is complicated. We know what kinds of decisions go into an event. We can't turn a historical event into a soundbite--it's just not possible. If you want a shining example of this, please visit Harry Truman's Presidential Library and Museum. The main exhibit there literally puts you into his shoes, giving you the information that he had and asking you "what would you do" when it comes to dropping the a-bomb. I have put this museum on the top of my vacation list.
Back to the Kennedy mini-series issue, there is debate about whether political leanings were involved. The History Channel claims that there are issues with historical accuracy and the main producer claims that it's because of his conservative leanings. I say that the truth is somewhere in between. I haven't studied conservative responses to Kennedy and he's old enough that people that were liberal back then would have turned conservative now. So I'm left to speculate. Since there are no obviously outrageous secrets spilled (according to some insider who's seen the series), I assume that the exact opposite is true. I think that the series shows too nice of a story of the Kennedys. There is that question about Marilyn Monroe and maybe they show a historically inaccurate account of this. Maybe their take on the Bay of Pigs is inaccurate. Maybe they focus too much on speculating on the personal life--more than can accurately be known. There's too many questions. Since neither Kennedys who are said to have objected to the series elected to speak, it's still only speculation as to if they are actually involved. This analysis would definitely not hold up in court.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
On the Civil War
With what's going on in the Middle East right now I think this is especially fitting.
"By December [1860] the subject was omnipresent, inescapable. 'Nothing was talked of but secession,' remembered one Southerner, 'in every company, at every street corner, whenever two people met that was the subject discussed.' How could Southerners not have seen secession coming, especially as they were, taken as a group, its architects? They did see it coming, of course. They voted and acted in ways that made it a likely, then an inevitable, then an accomplished fact. But they did not, could not, have foretold how it would feel.
And how did it feel? In diary after diary, letter after letter, Southerners describe themselves as being in a state of what might be termed political shock. The particulars and timing, of course, vary from state to state, family to family, person to person--but the trajectory goes something like this. Passing references to political affairs begin to lengthen, deepen, and become more personal; the abstract busy-ness of everyday life takes on direction and then energy, surging, swirling, and building, until the writers find themselves at the epicenter of something mammoth and unknown to them. It is a curious feeling, so immediate and strong, so much larger than the little bodies that seek to apprehend it, direct it, join it. Eventually, when political affairs have achieved sufficient gravity, time begins to warp. The months that stretch out between the election and Sumter become a hurtling calm, a furious wait. Finally, the wait--timeless and brief, exhilarating and terrifying--is over. If will be War. The mammoth something has swallowed up all the little writers, leaving of each only a disembodied narrative voice to comment distantly on the life it has surrendered to the rush.
This was an aspect of the secession crisis white Southerners shared regardless of political stripe. They were, all of them, at the center of the furious calm, safe for the moment but watching nervously as a storm raged about them, beyond their power and their ken. Men who had dedicated their whole lives to Southern independence pinched themselves as events they had set in motion took on a life of their own--and then slipped quietly out of their control. Others more removed from politics were altogether thunderstruck, exhilarated and dazed by turns. In diary after diary, unionist and disunionist alike document a reaction that seems a lot like shock. 'Things seem to progress in a slow but certain way,' Meta Grimball marveled from her South Carolina plantation. "Everything goes on as usual, the planting, the negros, all just the same; and a great Empire tumbling to pieces about us.' ...."
Excerpt from:
Berry, Stephen William. All that makes a man: love and ambition in the Civil War South. New York: Oxford UP, 2003.
"By December [1860] the subject was omnipresent, inescapable. 'Nothing was talked of but secession,' remembered one Southerner, 'in every company, at every street corner, whenever two people met that was the subject discussed.' How could Southerners not have seen secession coming, especially as they were, taken as a group, its architects? They did see it coming, of course. They voted and acted in ways that made it a likely, then an inevitable, then an accomplished fact. But they did not, could not, have foretold how it would feel.
And how did it feel? In diary after diary, letter after letter, Southerners describe themselves as being in a state of what might be termed political shock. The particulars and timing, of course, vary from state to state, family to family, person to person--but the trajectory goes something like this. Passing references to political affairs begin to lengthen, deepen, and become more personal; the abstract busy-ness of everyday life takes on direction and then energy, surging, swirling, and building, until the writers find themselves at the epicenter of something mammoth and unknown to them. It is a curious feeling, so immediate and strong, so much larger than the little bodies that seek to apprehend it, direct it, join it. Eventually, when political affairs have achieved sufficient gravity, time begins to warp. The months that stretch out between the election and Sumter become a hurtling calm, a furious wait. Finally, the wait--timeless and brief, exhilarating and terrifying--is over. If will be War. The mammoth something has swallowed up all the little writers, leaving of each only a disembodied narrative voice to comment distantly on the life it has surrendered to the rush.
This was an aspect of the secession crisis white Southerners shared regardless of political stripe. They were, all of them, at the center of the furious calm, safe for the moment but watching nervously as a storm raged about them, beyond their power and their ken. Men who had dedicated their whole lives to Southern independence pinched themselves as events they had set in motion took on a life of their own--and then slipped quietly out of their control. Others more removed from politics were altogether thunderstruck, exhilarated and dazed by turns. In diary after diary, unionist and disunionist alike document a reaction that seems a lot like shock. 'Things seem to progress in a slow but certain way,' Meta Grimball marveled from her South Carolina plantation. "Everything goes on as usual, the planting, the negros, all just the same; and a great Empire tumbling to pieces about us.' ...."
Excerpt from:
Berry, Stephen William. All that makes a man: love and ambition in the Civil War South. New York: Oxford UP, 2003.
Friday, March 18, 2011
The Week of the Bad Music
It all started with Rebecca Black's "Friday" and ended with Glee's "Original Song" episode. Whenever I think about a song's composure I picture Roger from 101 Dalmations telling his wife "Melody first, my dear, then the lyrics". I think that there are two types of bad songs: those which have a terrible melody and those which have terrible lyrics (okay, so there's the third type that both suck, but I don't know if I've ever heard one of those). I'm definitely no music producer, and am quick to admit that I probably have terrible taste in music according to some standards, but I think I can give a decent report on a song.
So, on to this week where we see a terrific example of how terrible lyrics can ruin terrific melodies. Okay, "Friday" isn't exactly Chopin or Bach in the melody area, but it isn't god-awful. It fits with the pop/party music that is popular with the teen sect. However overly simplistic lyrics (you know you've heard them) that sound like a 10 year old wrote them makes this one of the worst songs I've ever heard. I would personally love to double "Gibbs smack" whomever the writer of that song was for doing that to the poor girl. She sounds fine, it's the stupid lyrics. I also heard about the awful comments written about her--really??! We live in an incredibly ignorant society. Give the girl a break and shoot her producer for the song choice.
I think that it's fitting that Glee tackled songwriting this week in their episode to show just how dumb lyrics can be. "Trouty Mouth", "My Hairband", "Big Ass...Heart" yeah--wow, sounds like a 16 year old wrote them, which is incredibly fitting given that these are supposed to be high schoolers. But if you ignore the words you can imagine how the songs can be improved with just better content and styling. The melodies were not compromised when making fun of teenagers writing lyrics.
P.S. I LOVED the song "Loser like me"! It's exactly what I like Glee to say since so many teens watch this show.
So, on to this week where we see a terrific example of how terrible lyrics can ruin terrific melodies. Okay, "Friday" isn't exactly Chopin or Bach in the melody area, but it isn't god-awful. It fits with the pop/party music that is popular with the teen sect. However overly simplistic lyrics (you know you've heard them) that sound like a 10 year old wrote them makes this one of the worst songs I've ever heard. I would personally love to double "Gibbs smack" whomever the writer of that song was for doing that to the poor girl. She sounds fine, it's the stupid lyrics. I also heard about the awful comments written about her--really??! We live in an incredibly ignorant society. Give the girl a break and shoot her producer for the song choice.
I think that it's fitting that Glee tackled songwriting this week in their episode to show just how dumb lyrics can be. "Trouty Mouth", "My Hairband", "Big Ass...Heart" yeah--wow, sounds like a 16 year old wrote them, which is incredibly fitting given that these are supposed to be high schoolers. But if you ignore the words you can imagine how the songs can be improved with just better content and styling. The melodies were not compromised when making fun of teenagers writing lyrics.
P.S. I LOVED the song "Loser like me"! It's exactly what I like Glee to say since so many teens watch this show.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Technology
I hate "pop-unders". They're pop-ups that pop under the currently opened screen--I'm sure you've gotten them. I think I'd rather have the old pop-ups because at least then it's easy to see them and close them. With a pop-under you first have to notice that it's opened (or else you'll have 10,000 screens open) and then have to get it to the top "layer" of the screen to be able to close it. I swear it takes 4 times as long. [End Rant]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)