It's Tuesday, where are you?

An Artist of the Floating World
Arakawa, Japan 1948

Music Mix Friday...The Pipettes "ABC"

Full Dark House - Christopher Fowler

full dark house
christopher fowler
c. 2003
349 pages
completed 1/26/2011

read for: historical fiction challenge, peculiar crimes unit mysteries

*may contain spoilers*

It really was a hell of a blast.

After the death of Arthur Bryant, his partner for over fifty years, John May, detective of London's Peculiar Crimes Unit, is determined to find his friend's murderer. His investigation keeps bringing up references to the very first case he and Arthur ever took on together. John has to dig into his memory to a time of blackouts and bombs to remember a grisly series of murders at the Palace Theater in order to avenge his friend.

I am almost finished reading the Brother Cadfael books and so I'm looking for a new series of mysteries to take their place. I was a little wary going into this one, since my sister the librarian said it was boring, but I should have just remembered she's also told me "The Woman in White" was boring which has turned out to be one of my favorite books. I think this will do nicely as a replacement series (though don't worry, Hugh Berringar, no one will ever replace you in my heart). It's not nearly as long as Brother Cadfael, but I believe the author isn't finished writing them. Anyway, onto actually talking about the book...

Since it was the first of the series, this is the book where not only do we, the readers, get to meet Arthur and John and their band of peculiars, but they get to meet each other for the first time. I really liked the way the meeting was done. Instead of starting at the beginning, we meet them on the day of Arthur's death and then travel back 65 years or so to the London Blitz and John and Arthur's first case together. Seeing the parallel between the first case and Arthur's murder kept the two stories well connected.

I loved Arthur and John. They were a great odd couple and that's what you want in a somewhat comical detective duo, like Shawn and Gus from Psych or Booth and Brennan from Bones (though maybe without the latter's romantic tension - of course this is only book one so who knows). John's a perfect newbie straight man to Arthur's tragically comic eccentric. I also liked how young they are. John's nineteen and Arthur's barely into his twenties, yet here they are, forced by the war to grow up pretty quick. But they've still got quite a bit of youthful exuberance and naivete. 

Lastly, I love when a book makes constant reference to another work (in this case: the operetta Orpheus in the Underworld by Jacques Offenbach). I love getting introduced to something else through the book I'm reading.

4/5

It's Tuesday, where are you?

The Grapes of Wrath
Sallisaw, Oklahoma 1930s

Scaramouche Movie Review

scaramouche
1952
starring: mel ferrer, stewart granger, janet leigh, and eleanor parker

watched for: page to screen challenge

*may contain spoilers*

I am usually a strong advocate for film versions of books. I think people sometimes can be extremely harsh in judging the transition from one medium to another and can be overly critical of every minute detail change. For this movie, however, I think I have to join the ranks of the overly critical. Now, there were certain changes I could understand and get on board with, such as condensing the story so that Andre's time in the theater troupe and his time learning to fence happened simultaneously. I understand changing the age of the Marquis to make it more believable to have him and Andre both vying for the affections of Aline. And I even understand changing Climene's name to the much less French Lenore (for a 1952 audience). But that's about as far as the understanding could go.

There was no point in making Lenore Andre's girlfriend from the get-go and Aline a girl he'd never met before. Aline went from being a strong-willed, spunky, and even sometimes arrogant young woman in the book to a demur child-like innocent in the film, just as Andre went from being a thoughtful and intelligent man to being basically a boor and a man-whore. I really couldn't understand the appeal of making Andre fall in love with Aline only to make him "discover" her to be his sister (he finds out later she's not). Who needs a gross incest subplot? Andre's whole family plot unfolds so interestingly in the book, and yet the way it was changed for the film honestly left me confused. I'm all for changes that make sense and/or enhance viewing pleasure, but these changes were pointless.

The thing I found the most ridiculous? In the book, Andre plays a pretty big role in the beginning of the French Revolution. French politics are the backbone of the story. The movie, however, reduced Andre's whole motivation to that of mere revenge, almost no politics in sight. The only reason the viewer would know this takes place during the French Revolution is the randomly added character of Marie Antoinette (not in the book) and Philippe's pamphlet blatantly subtly titled "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity." In the movie, Andre makes no political speeches and his role as Scaramouche in the Commedia is reduced to nothing more than a slapstick clown. Scaramouche is not just a clown. He's supposed to be a satirist. Also, if we're really going to get picky, he's supposed to be Spanish and dressed all in black (hence Freddy Mercury referring to him as a silhouette and asking him to fandango). If I wanted to continue in this vein, I could also complain about Lenore being called Columbine (Columbine was a soubrette, a flirtatious and mischievous servant, whereas Climene was supposed to be an innamorati, one of the lovers), but I'll let it lie.

To be totally fair, had I not read the book I think I could have enjoyed it a lot. In fact, I did manage to enjoy the second half once I'd gotten over my initial abhorrence to all the seemingly ridiculous changes. And I will note that it does have some historical value in having (one of?) the longest continuous swashbuckling sword-fights ever filmed (clocking in at over six minutes), which was a great scene. But it wasn't quite enough for me.

3/5

Read my review of the original book here.

Music Mix Friday...Mumford & Sons "Little Lion Man"

I like this song. It's a touch NSFW though, so watch out.

By the end of February...

Okay, so I'm not off to a great start. I'm already behind and we're only one month in, so February is going to be catch up month. Maybe...


To be Read by the End of February
The Grapes of Wrath - John Steinbeck
The Fourth Bear - Jasper Fforde
An Artist of the Floating World - Kazuo Ishiguro
Against Nature - Jori-Karl Huysmans
Lady Chatterley's Lover - DH Lawrence
Love and Other Demons - Gabriel Garcia Marquez

Hmmm. And February's the short month, too...

To be read...

Dash and Lily's Book of Dares - Rachel Cohn and David Levithan
A Tiny Bit Marvelous - Dawn French
The Convent - Panos Karnezis
Indiscretion - Jude Morgan
At Least in the City Someone Would Hear Me Scream - Wade Rouse
India Black - Carol K Carr
The Kitchen House - Kathleen Grissom
Of Bees and Mist - Erick Setiawan
The Ladies of Lyndon - Margaret Kennedy
The Queen of Last Hopes - Susan Higgenbotham
Rochester the Mad Earl - Kathleen Kellow
Day of Revenge - Deanna Proach
26a - Diana Evans
The Ice Princess - Camilla Lackberg
I Still Dream About You - Fannie Flagg
The Tea Rose - Jennifer Donnelly
How to Survive a Garden Gnome Attack - Chuck Sambuchino

17 new books added to the list...

The Holy Thief - Ellis Peters

the holy thief
ellis peters
c. 1992
275 pages
completed 1/12/2011

read for: historical fiction challenge, page to screen challenge

*may contain spoilers*

In the height of a hot summer, in late August of 1144, Geoffrey de Mandeville, Earl of Essex, deferred to the heat of the sun, and made the final, fatal mistake of his long and opportunist career.

Ramsey Abbey had fallen prey to a band of soldiers of the Empress Maud's party who had left their cause for the more fortuitous pursuits of ransacking and pillaging northern England. The sudden death of Geoffrey de Mandeville left them without a leader and the monks were able to reclaim their abbey. Sub-Prior Herluin and his enigmatic companion Brother Tutillo travel to Shrewsbury in search of money, supplies, and labor to aid in Ramsey Abbey's rebuilding. They stay long enough to help the monks of Shrewsbury protect their treasures against a tremendous flood. When the flood is over and the monks of Ramsey leave, Shrewsbury discovers its most precious treasure, the bones of St. Winifred, is missing. It's quickly discovered to be making its way to Ramsey. Brother Cadfael aids Hugh Beringar to discover if the theft was the work of a man or if St. Winifred herself made her way into the cart. But before the matter can be settled, Cadfael and Hugh may find their holy thief to be a murderer as well.

As the penultimate book in the Brother Cadfael Chronicles, The Holy Thief doesn't disappoint. Brother Cadfael is right in the thick of things, befriending and aiding the accused, breaking some abbey rules in order to investigate, conferring and conspiring with Hugh and Abbot Radulfus. I was pretty disappointed with the last installment (see: Summer of the Danes), but this one was back on track.

Cadfael's relationship with St. Winifred has always been an element of these books that I've really enjoyed. Sometimes Cadfael can come across as slightly too practical for a monk so witnessing their communion is always nice, especially considering what's actually in St. Winifred's reliquary. I also really appreciated the balance between Cadfael's practical feelings on the trial by bible element of the theft (a scene I really enjoyed) as well as his experience of the miraculous as he interpreted the words. Though he knows those can easily be rigged and interpreted in many ways, the words spoke to him very specifically.

In every installment in the series there is always at least one set of lovers (one of which is usually the accused) that Cadfael helps to bring together. And USUALLY I always like them. There have been occasions where I wasn't wild about one or the other (again Summer of the Danes springs to mind). In this case, I liked both characters separately, but the two together left me cold. First off, they didn't interact a whole lot so I wasn't able to see and understand them falling in love. They seemed a little mismatched to me.

I always love when one of these books makes reference to characters and events from previous episodes. And this one had lots of shout outs: Brother Columbanus, Liliwin, and Soulien Blount, all from different books. Nice.

I only have one more to go. I'm going to be so sad to see the series end. :(

4/5

As I read this in part for the Page to Screen Challenge, check out my review of the 1998 TV-movie version here.

Scaramouche - Rafael Sabatini

scaramouche
rafael sabatini
c. 1921
406 pages
completed 1/8/2011

read for: historical fiction challenge, page to screen challenge

*may contain spoilers*

He was born with a gift of laughter and a sense that the world was mad.

Distraught after the murder of his childhood friend, Monsier Philippe Vilmorin, for his "dangerous gift of eloquence," Andre-Louis Moreau vows to see justice done. After being brushed off by the law due to the murderer being a Marquis, Andre-Louis takes to the streets of France to incite the Third Estate against the over privileged nobility, continuing the work Philippe died for, though he himself doesn't believe in his friend's idealism. His speeches, echos of Philippe's words, are considered treasonous, and Andre-Louis is forced to go into hiding. He takes up with a band of improvisational actors in the tradition of the Commedia dell'Arte, but he doesn't forget his vow to avenge Philippe or the politics that drove him into hiding. Andre-Louis's life becomes an adventure of secrecy and swashbuckling sword fights, set against the backdrop of the French Revolution, during which his original cynicism may yet become the idealism of his friend.

First off, I always love a strong and memorable opening line and this is definitely a great one. And it really sets the tone for the rest of the book. I don't often notice an author's particular writing style and sentence structure unless it annoys me, but this is one of the times when I noticed how much I felt it added to the story.

Plot-wise I found this book to be constantly engaging with elements of both drama and comedy. It had a good balance of both which I found refreshing. Sometimes adventure/swashbuckling stories like this can take themselves a little too seriously and be too straightforward. And at other times they can try to be a little too hyper-aware and fall over themselves trying to be in on the joke. I hope that made sense. There was a lot of humor, especially in Andre-Louis' scenes with the acting troupe, and some rather dark comedy when Andre-Louis would address the National Assembly after killing other Assemblymen in duels. Yet there was constant drama as well, both political (this is the French Revolution, after all) and much more personal.

I found certain aspects of the personal drama to be a little soapy (the identity of Andre-Louis' mother was obvious as soon as the woman was introduced, even though Andre-Louis had no idea), but for the most part it was deeply complex (I was SHOCKED by the identity of Andre-Louis' father). One aspect that really made the book enjoyable for me was the fact that the villain, the Marquis de la Tour d'Azyr, is introduced very much through the eyes of Andre-Louis and Philippe and so for the first half of the book he seems like nothing more than a monster. However, as the book goes on the reader is able to see him through his own eyes and really come to understand some of his motivations making him much more complex and more man than monster. At first these scenes seemed so incongruous with the way Andre-Louis viewed him, but eventually I was able to put all the pieces together to understand him more. By the end he's much more an antagonist than a straight up villain.

The last time I read a book that focused so much on the politics of the French Revolution, I really wasn't able to comment on the historical accuracy of that book (see: Mistress of the Revolution). This time, however, I was just coming off a history class on the French Revolution. I have to say, it's extremely enjoyable to read a historically set book and really feel like you have a solid grasp on the history of the time. I mean, let's be for real, one class hardly makes me an expert or anything, but having that knowledge really enhanced my enjoyment. I even have a historical quibble! In the book, Andre-Louis went from a member of the National Constituent Assembly to the Legislative Assembly newly created under the constitution of 1791. This would have been impossible, however, as Robespierre passed a "self-denying ordinance" barring any member of the National Assembly from sitting for the Legislative Assembly. This one quibble in no way detracted from my enjoyment of the book, though. In fact, it just made me feel smart. If there had been lots of mistakes, that would have been another story...

5/5

As I read this in part for the Page to Screen Challenge, check out my review of the 1952 film version.