Media Consumption
Well, I made it back safely from my trip late last night. It was an extremely long day and by the time we pulled into our driveway we had been traveling for over 24 hours solid.
I have spent most of today getting my photographs organized from the trip. I am currently in the progress of uploading them to my site so, while that happens, I thought I would make a post reviewing the media I consumed during the trip. I don't often find the time to read books, with the exception of when I get to travel. I took advantage of this opportunity and read a few books that I can now review. In fact, when I go on vacation it is the books I read and the movies I watch that are just as much a part of the agenda as museums, castles, restaurants, and other physical attractions.
The first book I read on the trip was 'Tunnel in the Sky' by Robert A. Heinlein. As I started reading it I became pretty sure I had read it before. In fact I think I read most everything Heinlein wrote back when I was a teenager. I also remember absolutely hating Heinlein towards the end. Since that was all so many years ago I couldn't quite remember why I had grown to hate Heinlein. My friend Andy has been mentioning Heinlein of late in our conversations because, apparently, Heinlein makes a lot of Freemason references in some of his novels. I had never noticed this before. I did some research on the Internet and learned that Heinlein most definitely was *not* a Freemason, but he had friends who were and enjoyed throwing the references into his books to give them a little bit of spice.
Probably Heinlein's most famous book is 'Stranger in a Strange Land' which I distinctly recall affecting me strongly when I was a teenager. I reread it a year or so ago and while I still enjoyed the overall story arc I found a lot of the writing to be sexist and juvenile.
'Tunnel in the Sky' was a nice bit of pulp and I quite enjoyed it. It brought back memories of when I used to have a fondness for Heinlein's novels and I wondered if I shouldn't give him a try again. Especially since I have largely forgotten everything I had ever read before so it is, kind of, like reading it for the first time.
I found another Heinlein book on my shelf titled 'Farnham's Freehold' so I threw it into my carry-on luggage. As I began to read the book I quickly began to recall why I had come to actually loath Heinlein at one time. This book comes off as racist soft-core pornography. The lead character, like so many of the lead characters in Heinlein's novels, is a middle aged know-it-all grouch who acts like a sexist pig. In this novel he creates one of the most obnoxious incarnations of that character archetype. In the first few dozen pages alone he depicts the main character's middle aged wife as a drunken shrew who he quickly knocks out with sedatives. In short order he has the young people he is involved with remove all of their clothing and then has sex with a young girl, friend of his daughter, while his wife slumbers in a drug induced haze a few feet away.
His set-up is that an all out nuclear war has taken place while he was holding a dinner party and he just so happened to be the only guy paranoid enough to have a well stocked bomb shelter. His dinner party, includes himself, his drunken wife, his son, daughter, and her girlfriend, who all run off to the bomb shelter after just the first few pages of the book. Besides sedating his wife and having sex with his daughters friend he also finds time to threaten to shoot his own son or kick him out of the shelter if he doesn't obey his every sadistic order without so much as the slightest back-talk. At this point my Heinlein memory floodgates began to open and I remembered why I considered him literally unreadable by the time I gave up on this bizarre 'master' of Science Fiction.
Realize this is all just prelude, and takes place in just the first few dozen pages. Next they receive a direct hit from a nuclear bomb and through 'magic' (ahem I mean 'science') find themselves transported thousands of years into the future. In this future, Blacks have taken over the world in a highly aristocratic and authoritarian society. Meanwhile Whites are slaves and, of course, White women are sluts who must satisfy every sexual urge of any one higher on the social ladder than themselves which is, well, everyone.
Did Heinlein think he was being progressive by having the tables turned by letting Blacks become the slave owners of Whites? Even so his main character (who I always take to be a sock-puppet for Heinlein himself) quickly maneuvers himself into the aristocracy, gets his own whip, slaves and, of course, personal sex kitten.
Once I got off of the plane and arrived at my hotel in Paris I did something that I rarely ever do. I took this piece of garbage paperback and put it where it belonged, in the trash bin.
Needless to say, I was desperate for something a bit more intellectual that would flush the bad taste of Farnham's Freehold out of my brain.
The next book on my reading list was 'Einstein : His Life and Universe' by Walter Isaacson. Walter Isaacson is a well known biographer having profiled most recently Benjamin Franklin and Kissinger. I have recently read his biography of Franklin and was looking forward to his insights into Albert Einstein. I wasn't disappointed.
What can I say about Isaacson as a biographer? He writes extremely well, is incredibly detailed, makes use of excellent references, resources, and anecdotes. He is completely thorough, balanced, accurate, and succinct. The only thing is, there is something about his biographies which feel just a little bit too dry. You get all of the information you wanted and expected, but it doesn't produce any emotional resonance or gripping story arc. I would contrast his work with that of David McCullough who wrote the Pulitzer Prize winning biography of 'Harry Truman' and more recently the gripping tale of the American Revolution at its most dire hour in '1776'.
In contrast I find McCullough's biographies, even though they are often much longer and dramatically more detailed, to provide a more compelling narrative and emotional range.
Nevertheless, I learned a whole lot about Albert Einstein and my respect for the man has been enhanced many fold. People often paint Einstein into certain time-worn cliches that really don't match the complexity of the man. Isaaccson tells the story of the Einstein in such a way as to enhance his legacy among the handful of true geniuses that have changed our world.
Having read something serious, I was now ready for something, well, not so serious. My next novel was the 'Anansi Boys' by Neil Gaiman. I guess I may be one of the last people to get turned onto Gaiman since, apparently, he has been hanging around the best sellers lists for a while and has quite a library already to his name. Gaiman is a comic author, kind of a mix between Douglas Adams and Kurt Vonnegut. The most fun reading Gaiman is the lyrical turn of phrase he uses in his prose. He writes with tongue firmly planted in cheek and as he dashes to and fro in a stream of consciousness blur you continue to smile as you slowly lose sight of whatever it is he was actually supposed to be talking about in the first place.
The big negative with Gaiman is that the book is all for so much fun that you have difficulty following any sort of coherent narrative thread. I hit a big dead spot towards this middle of this book, actually put it aside and read something else for a while, and only later came back and finished it up. It does pick up nicely towards the end and I imagine I might give Gaiman another chance in the future. I would call it a bit of a mixed bag though.
Read a couple of the reviews of 'Anansi Boys' on Amazon.com to get a taste of what some others were able to verbalize about this strange man-boy fable.
My daughter has recently been really getting into Kurt Vonnegut. She finished her book, 'The Sirens of Titan' so I let her read the 'Anansi Boys'. Since I was running low on reading material I went ahead and read 'The Sirens of Titan' as well. Like Heinlein, I'm pretty sure I read a lot of Vonnegut when I was a teenager. I'm pretty sure I read 'The Sirens of Titan' but I'll be damned if I could remember any of it. I really enjoyed the novel, in fact I liked it a lot more than the 'Anansi Boys'. There was a certain similarity in that both books are written in a comic fashion with a strong sense of fable anchoring the tale. The only problem I had with 'The Sirens of Titan' is, I'm afraid, the same problem I have always had with Vonnegut. I read the book very quickly, devouring the prose, plot twists, and interesting characters. Unfortunately it all seems to come to naught. Nevertheless, I am game to try reading some more Vonnegut because I'm pretty sure I haven't read all of his novels.
During my trip I finally got around to auditing, ahem, I mean reading 'The Book of Fate' by Brad Meltzer. You know this book, the one with the great big square and compass on the front and a back cover that assures us that 'Washington D.C. has a two-hundred-year-old-secret'. I refused to buy this book in hardback but once I saw it in paperback for just eight bucks I decided it was time to figure out what it was all about.
What a strange book!! And what a strange world we live in. It is now the new formula to 'claim' that there is an 'ancient secret' that somehow controls the fate of some high-octane fueled thriller around, ideally, top tourist attractions in the world.
You are not going to believe this but THIS BOOK HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FREEMASONS!
I kid you not. NOTHING! It has nothing to do with the plot, the story, the conclusion, anything. The only Freemason references in the entire book revolve around an schizophrenic deeply mentally ill killer who happens to believe, personally, in Freemason conspiracies. The only mention of anything Freemason related in the entire book are expressed through the deranged rantings of this particular character. These rantings are infrequent and, I can't say enough, have *NOTHING* to do with the rest of the entire book. (During the rantings the character says things like 'so and so was a Freemason' and 'so and so was a Freemason' therefore ... insert any insane conspiracy imaginable)
In fact, the book is completely boilerplate thriller with bad guys, and good guys, and people running around trying to figure crap out while they occasionally get shot at. What's even more crazy is that it is actually a somewhat entertaining book. I read the entire thing quite easily, and at the end of my pulp infested reading experience found that I had more or less enjoyed it even though the 'plot' was mind-blowingly stupid. It was most certainly not a great book but, in comparison to say something like the Da Vinci Code, it was almost high art.
How bizarre that a book that was marketed entirely as based on Freemason conspiracies had not a single Freemason in it! Not a single character was a Freemason. Not a single Freemason meeting occurred or conspiracy was conjured by a sane human being. How very odd if you ask me.
My next two book reviews are based not on actually reading the books but just being exposed to their stench.
The first is 'The Road to Dune'. This book isn't entirely all that bad. It was quite interesting to read the letters and correspondence of Frank Herbert as he attempted to get the original Dune published. It was also mildly interesting to read the book chapters and rough drafts that got left out of the final cut. Of course, since this is all material that was, in fact, cut then none of it is particularly all that important. It is only of mild interest to a serious fan of the original Dune series.
The second is 'Hunters of Dune' by Brian Herbert and Kevin J. Anderson. I just don't know if I can bring myself to read this book. You must understand that I am a huge fan of the Dune series. I have read the entire series many times and I enjoyed all of it, not just the first three books. Yes, I have some pet peeves with Frank Herbert's Dune series but that is between Frank and I. Since Frank isn't with us any more I have come to terms with the small problems I have with his novels. Clearly the good far outweighs the bad and, on the whole, he painted a rich and interesting universe that has provided me with untold hours of entertainment.
Unfortunately, then we have to come to Brian Herbert who seems strangely compelled to rape the skull of his dead father by coming out with book after atrocious book that reads like the worst form of fan fiction. Attempting to read a Brian Herbert 'Dune' novel is an assault on the sensibilities of anyone who came to enjoy the deep and thoughtful prose of his father.
After having my mind numbed by one of Brian's novels I decided I would refuse to read any of his books, and I have stuck to it.
That is, until now. Allegedly Frank Herbert had a complete outline and story notes for a final Dune novel. Now, as a fan of the Frank Herbert Dune series I am really quite interested to know where he planned to take the story.
The problem is, rather than this outline being handed to a brilliant Science Fiction author who would treat it with the proper reverence of a holy relic, it instead is in the hands of his hack and hackneyed son who is intent on warping the Dune Universe into a bunch of sadistic and soulless killing machines with about as much depth a bit of spice on the sand to fool the Harkenons.
I am not amused. I bought the book, and I am trying to read it because I really do want to know where Frank Herbert wanted to take the story. The only thing is...I'm not certain I trust Brian Herbert to actually present that story arc intact, that is if it actually existed in the first place! The fact that Frank left an outline for *one* book and his son claims he has to write *at least* two is setting off warning bells right off the bat.
And that, my friends, is where I stopped reading for the trip.
Of course, I also brought along my Archos 604 multimedia player so I was able to watch a few movies as well.
'Blood Diamond' : My review of this film would be 'remarkably enjoyable'. There you go.
'I Heart Huckabees' This movie is a little too cute and self-conscious for its own good but, if you are in a certain kind of mood, it can be kind of fun to watch.
'Miami Vice' This was really quite odd. Miami Vice was a very bright and colorful show and also a bit campy. It revelled in the lifestyle and sex-appeal of the main characters. Meanwhile, this movie is a dirty, gritty, dark, and a suprisingly depressing experience. The characters are dark and moody and nothing in this film harkens back in any way to the television show it is named after.
'Shaun of the Dead' This is a one joke movie that should only be done once. Howver, that one joke is performed remarkably well and this movie is surprisingly entertaining. If you only watch one zombie movie in your life, it might as well be this one because at least you will get a few laughs.
'Volver' My wife and I watched this while we are on the train from Paris to Rome. It was helpful that it was subtitled since it would have been difficult to make out the dialouge over the roar of the train. A thoroughly enjoyable film.
I have spent most of today getting my photographs organized from the trip. I am currently in the progress of uploading them to my site so, while that happens, I thought I would make a post reviewing the media I consumed during the trip. I don't often find the time to read books, with the exception of when I get to travel. I took advantage of this opportunity and read a few books that I can now review. In fact, when I go on vacation it is the books I read and the movies I watch that are just as much a part of the agenda as museums, castles, restaurants, and other physical attractions.
The first book I read on the trip was 'Tunnel in the Sky' by Robert A. Heinlein. As I started reading it I became pretty sure I had read it before. In fact I think I read most everything Heinlein wrote back when I was a teenager. I also remember absolutely hating Heinlein towards the end. Since that was all so many years ago I couldn't quite remember why I had grown to hate Heinlein. My friend Andy has been mentioning Heinlein of late in our conversations because, apparently, Heinlein makes a lot of Freemason references in some of his novels. I had never noticed this before. I did some research on the Internet and learned that Heinlein most definitely was *not* a Freemason, but he had friends who were and enjoyed throwing the references into his books to give them a little bit of spice.
Probably Heinlein's most famous book is 'Stranger in a Strange Land' which I distinctly recall affecting me strongly when I was a teenager. I reread it a year or so ago and while I still enjoyed the overall story arc I found a lot of the writing to be sexist and juvenile.
'Tunnel in the Sky' was a nice bit of pulp and I quite enjoyed it. It brought back memories of when I used to have a fondness for Heinlein's novels and I wondered if I shouldn't give him a try again. Especially since I have largely forgotten everything I had ever read before so it is, kind of, like reading it for the first time.
I found another Heinlein book on my shelf titled 'Farnham's Freehold' so I threw it into my carry-on luggage. As I began to read the book I quickly began to recall why I had come to actually loath Heinlein at one time. This book comes off as racist soft-core pornography. The lead character, like so many of the lead characters in Heinlein's novels, is a middle aged know-it-all grouch who acts like a sexist pig. In this novel he creates one of the most obnoxious incarnations of that character archetype. In the first few dozen pages alone he depicts the main character's middle aged wife as a drunken shrew who he quickly knocks out with sedatives. In short order he has the young people he is involved with remove all of their clothing and then has sex with a young girl, friend of his daughter, while his wife slumbers in a drug induced haze a few feet away.
His set-up is that an all out nuclear war has taken place while he was holding a dinner party and he just so happened to be the only guy paranoid enough to have a well stocked bomb shelter. His dinner party, includes himself, his drunken wife, his son, daughter, and her girlfriend, who all run off to the bomb shelter after just the first few pages of the book. Besides sedating his wife and having sex with his daughters friend he also finds time to threaten to shoot his own son or kick him out of the shelter if he doesn't obey his every sadistic order without so much as the slightest back-talk. At this point my Heinlein memory floodgates began to open and I remembered why I considered him literally unreadable by the time I gave up on this bizarre 'master' of Science Fiction.
Realize this is all just prelude, and takes place in just the first few dozen pages. Next they receive a direct hit from a nuclear bomb and through 'magic' (ahem I mean 'science') find themselves transported thousands of years into the future. In this future, Blacks have taken over the world in a highly aristocratic and authoritarian society. Meanwhile Whites are slaves and, of course, White women are sluts who must satisfy every sexual urge of any one higher on the social ladder than themselves which is, well, everyone.
Did Heinlein think he was being progressive by having the tables turned by letting Blacks become the slave owners of Whites? Even so his main character (who I always take to be a sock-puppet for Heinlein himself) quickly maneuvers himself into the aristocracy, gets his own whip, slaves and, of course, personal sex kitten.
Once I got off of the plane and arrived at my hotel in Paris I did something that I rarely ever do. I took this piece of garbage paperback and put it where it belonged, in the trash bin.
Needless to say, I was desperate for something a bit more intellectual that would flush the bad taste of Farnham's Freehold out of my brain.
The next book on my reading list was 'Einstein : His Life and Universe' by Walter Isaacson. Walter Isaacson is a well known biographer having profiled most recently Benjamin Franklin and Kissinger. I have recently read his biography of Franklin and was looking forward to his insights into Albert Einstein. I wasn't disappointed.
What can I say about Isaacson as a biographer? He writes extremely well, is incredibly detailed, makes use of excellent references, resources, and anecdotes. He is completely thorough, balanced, accurate, and succinct. The only thing is, there is something about his biographies which feel just a little bit too dry. You get all of the information you wanted and expected, but it doesn't produce any emotional resonance or gripping story arc. I would contrast his work with that of David McCullough who wrote the Pulitzer Prize winning biography of 'Harry Truman' and more recently the gripping tale of the American Revolution at its most dire hour in '1776'.
In contrast I find McCullough's biographies, even though they are often much longer and dramatically more detailed, to provide a more compelling narrative and emotional range.
Nevertheless, I learned a whole lot about Albert Einstein and my respect for the man has been enhanced many fold. People often paint Einstein into certain time-worn cliches that really don't match the complexity of the man. Isaaccson tells the story of the Einstein in such a way as to enhance his legacy among the handful of true geniuses that have changed our world.
Having read something serious, I was now ready for something, well, not so serious. My next novel was the 'Anansi Boys' by Neil Gaiman. I guess I may be one of the last people to get turned onto Gaiman since, apparently, he has been hanging around the best sellers lists for a while and has quite a library already to his name. Gaiman is a comic author, kind of a mix between Douglas Adams and Kurt Vonnegut. The most fun reading Gaiman is the lyrical turn of phrase he uses in his prose. He writes with tongue firmly planted in cheek and as he dashes to and fro in a stream of consciousness blur you continue to smile as you slowly lose sight of whatever it is he was actually supposed to be talking about in the first place.
The big negative with Gaiman is that the book is all for so much fun that you have difficulty following any sort of coherent narrative thread. I hit a big dead spot towards this middle of this book, actually put it aside and read something else for a while, and only later came back and finished it up. It does pick up nicely towards the end and I imagine I might give Gaiman another chance in the future. I would call it a bit of a mixed bag though.
Read a couple of the reviews of 'Anansi Boys' on Amazon.com to get a taste of what some others were able to verbalize about this strange man-boy fable.
My daughter has recently been really getting into Kurt Vonnegut. She finished her book, 'The Sirens of Titan' so I let her read the 'Anansi Boys'. Since I was running low on reading material I went ahead and read 'The Sirens of Titan' as well. Like Heinlein, I'm pretty sure I read a lot of Vonnegut when I was a teenager. I'm pretty sure I read 'The Sirens of Titan' but I'll be damned if I could remember any of it. I really enjoyed the novel, in fact I liked it a lot more than the 'Anansi Boys'. There was a certain similarity in that both books are written in a comic fashion with a strong sense of fable anchoring the tale. The only problem I had with 'The Sirens of Titan' is, I'm afraid, the same problem I have always had with Vonnegut. I read the book very quickly, devouring the prose, plot twists, and interesting characters. Unfortunately it all seems to come to naught. Nevertheless, I am game to try reading some more Vonnegut because I'm pretty sure I haven't read all of his novels.
During my trip I finally got around to auditing, ahem, I mean reading 'The Book of Fate' by Brad Meltzer. You know this book, the one with the great big square and compass on the front and a back cover that assures us that 'Washington D.C. has a two-hundred-year-old-secret'. I refused to buy this book in hardback but once I saw it in paperback for just eight bucks I decided it was time to figure out what it was all about.
What a strange book!! And what a strange world we live in. It is now the new formula to 'claim' that there is an 'ancient secret' that somehow controls the fate of some high-octane fueled thriller around, ideally, top tourist attractions in the world.
You are not going to believe this but THIS BOOK HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FREEMASONS!
I kid you not. NOTHING! It has nothing to do with the plot, the story, the conclusion, anything. The only Freemason references in the entire book revolve around an schizophrenic deeply mentally ill killer who happens to believe, personally, in Freemason conspiracies. The only mention of anything Freemason related in the entire book are expressed through the deranged rantings of this particular character. These rantings are infrequent and, I can't say enough, have *NOTHING* to do with the rest of the entire book. (During the rantings the character says things like 'so and so was a Freemason' and 'so and so was a Freemason' therefore ... insert any insane conspiracy imaginable)
In fact, the book is completely boilerplate thriller with bad guys, and good guys, and people running around trying to figure crap out while they occasionally get shot at. What's even more crazy is that it is actually a somewhat entertaining book. I read the entire thing quite easily, and at the end of my pulp infested reading experience found that I had more or less enjoyed it even though the 'plot' was mind-blowingly stupid. It was most certainly not a great book but, in comparison to say something like the Da Vinci Code, it was almost high art.
How bizarre that a book that was marketed entirely as based on Freemason conspiracies had not a single Freemason in it! Not a single character was a Freemason. Not a single Freemason meeting occurred or conspiracy was conjured by a sane human being. How very odd if you ask me.
My next two book reviews are based not on actually reading the books but just being exposed to their stench.
The first is 'The Road to Dune'. This book isn't entirely all that bad. It was quite interesting to read the letters and correspondence of Frank Herbert as he attempted to get the original Dune published. It was also mildly interesting to read the book chapters and rough drafts that got left out of the final cut. Of course, since this is all material that was, in fact, cut then none of it is particularly all that important. It is only of mild interest to a serious fan of the original Dune series.
The second is 'Hunters of Dune' by Brian Herbert and Kevin J. Anderson. I just don't know if I can bring myself to read this book. You must understand that I am a huge fan of the Dune series. I have read the entire series many times and I enjoyed all of it, not just the first three books. Yes, I have some pet peeves with Frank Herbert's Dune series but that is between Frank and I. Since Frank isn't with us any more I have come to terms with the small problems I have with his novels. Clearly the good far outweighs the bad and, on the whole, he painted a rich and interesting universe that has provided me with untold hours of entertainment.
Unfortunately, then we have to come to Brian Herbert who seems strangely compelled to rape the skull of his dead father by coming out with book after atrocious book that reads like the worst form of fan fiction. Attempting to read a Brian Herbert 'Dune' novel is an assault on the sensibilities of anyone who came to enjoy the deep and thoughtful prose of his father.
After having my mind numbed by one of Brian's novels I decided I would refuse to read any of his books, and I have stuck to it.
That is, until now. Allegedly Frank Herbert had a complete outline and story notes for a final Dune novel. Now, as a fan of the Frank Herbert Dune series I am really quite interested to know where he planned to take the story.
The problem is, rather than this outline being handed to a brilliant Science Fiction author who would treat it with the proper reverence of a holy relic, it instead is in the hands of his hack and hackneyed son who is intent on warping the Dune Universe into a bunch of sadistic and soulless killing machines with about as much depth a bit of spice on the sand to fool the Harkenons.
I am not amused. I bought the book, and I am trying to read it because I really do want to know where Frank Herbert wanted to take the story. The only thing is...I'm not certain I trust Brian Herbert to actually present that story arc intact, that is if it actually existed in the first place! The fact that Frank left an outline for *one* book and his son claims he has to write *at least* two is setting off warning bells right off the bat.
And that, my friends, is where I stopped reading for the trip.
Of course, I also brought along my Archos 604 multimedia player so I was able to watch a few movies as well.
'Blood Diamond' : My review of this film would be 'remarkably enjoyable'. There you go.
'I Heart Huckabees' This movie is a little too cute and self-conscious for its own good but, if you are in a certain kind of mood, it can be kind of fun to watch.
'Miami Vice' This was really quite odd. Miami Vice was a very bright and colorful show and also a bit campy. It revelled in the lifestyle and sex-appeal of the main characters. Meanwhile, this movie is a dirty, gritty, dark, and a suprisingly depressing experience. The characters are dark and moody and nothing in this film harkens back in any way to the television show it is named after.
As a cop-thriller with a couple of guys going undercover it is mildly entertaining and at no point did I feel compelled to stop watching it. Then again, had I never watched it in the first place I'm thinking my life would be pretty much the same.
'Shaun of the Dead' This is a one joke movie that should only be done once. Howver, that one joke is performed remarkably well and this movie is surprisingly entertaining. If you only watch one zombie movie in your life, it might as well be this one because at least you will get a few laughs.
'Volver' My wife and I watched this while we are on the train from Paris to Rome. It was helpful that it was subtitled since it would have been difficult to make out the dialouge over the roar of the train. A thoroughly enjoyable film.
'Jet Li's Fearless'. I enjoy watching martial arts as much as the next guy so I guess this movie let me pass the time. Since it was, apparently, very loosely based on a 'true story' the ending is a bit bizarre.
Comments