Showing posts with label Homosexuality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Homosexuality. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 10, 2024

Book Review - Michael Chabon's The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay

The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay by Michael Chabon
Published by: Picador USA
Publication Date: September 19th, 2000
Format: Paperback, 639 Pages
Rating: ★★
To Buy

In 1939 Europe isn't safe if you're Jewish. Josef Kavalier lives in Prague but is unable to use the travel visa his parents obtained for him due to the ever changing policies of the Nazi Party. "Joe" was studying escapology and his teacher, Bernard Kornblum, has a plan. To smuggle Joe out with the Golem of Prague, a prize the Reich desperately wants. Concealed in the coffin Joe eventually makes his way to New York City and his cousin Sammy Klayman. Joe's one mission on reaching New York City is to find a way to get his family to join him. This requires money. Upon learning of Joe's artistic abilities as well as his knowledge of escapology, Sammy comes up with a plan that he pitches to his boss, Joe and Sam, under the moniker Kavalier and Clay, are going to write a comic, The Escapist. The Escapist will fight Fascism and punch Hitler in his ugly mug and laugh in the face of Germans with his Golden Key that lets him escape any bonds. But the creators of the comics, while decently paid, often didn't get the monetary rewards or fame they deserved. Even when the comic makes the leap to radio. The cousins grow frustrated. Joe has his family to rescue and a girl he's fallen for, while Sam has literary ambitions and is coming to grips with his sexuality, awakened due to the voice actor who plays the Escapist. These aspects of themselves and their desires play out in the worst way possible. Joe's family dies. Even his younger brother, Thomas, whom he had managed to get out of Europe. Thomas's boat, The Ark of Miriam, was bombed by a German U-boat and he now lies dead on the ocean floor. Meanwhile Sam is involved in a police raid on a getaway with several other homosexuals. He is violently assaulted and raped by FBI agents. When he finally makes his way back to New York City he finds that Joe is gone, he's enlisted in the Navy, and his girl, Rosa, is pregnant. Sam's trauma after his assault makes him sublimate his homosexuality and he wants to live a "normal" life. A nice nuclear family in the suburbs with a white picket fence. Which is what he offers Rosa. They can marry and raise little Tommy as their own. Only they will know the truth. That is until one day when Joe finally returns to their lives. Will Kavalier and Clay reunite or will all their lives once again implode?

I have repeatedly tried to embrace Michael Chabon and I just can't. There's no doubt he has immense talent as seen in his stunning prose. I just don't like what the prose are about or how they're structured. And I really think that it's not just his writing I dislike, I dislike him as a person. But it hasn't evolved to the hate I hold for his microdosing wife. So yes, applaud his use of obscure and verbose language, which, coming from Columbia University leads to Pulitzers, but coming from me, is a backhanded compliment. You shouldn't need a dictionary to read a book. And the thing is, I really tired with this book. I really really did because it's one of my friend's favorite books and to just have to say it wasn't for me left my stomach completely tied up in knots. Seriously, the stomach acid produced was extraordinary. I had to see my doctor. But this mix of magical realism and historical fiction with a weird Lovecraftian sidequest just didn't work for me. Though what it really came down to is Jack Kirby. It would not be hyperbolic to say that comics as we know them would not exist without Jack Kirby. Kirby, with the occasional assist from Stan Lee, co-created some of the most famous superheroes that now make up the MCU, from Captain America to Thor to the X-Men. With Joe Simon he created the single most famous comic book cover of all time; Captain America punching Hitler. That cover was published in March of 1941, nine months before the United States finally entered WWII. And for many it felt like the call to arms it was. But also a shocking statement from an unexpected source, a Jewish comic book artist. Kirby died in 1994 and tragically his later years were spent fighting Marvel to exert control over properties he had created. A struggle that his children continued. Marvel wanted to consign Kirby to history while Stan Lee "hijacked" Kirby's legacy to embolden his own and become "the man." The only way to sum up Kirby's legacy is that he was done wrong by. Therefore I have major issues with this book. I know that in his afterword Michael Chabon states that he wants "to acknowledge the deep debt I owe in this and everything else I've ever written to the work of the late Jack Kirby, the King of Comics." So, you were so in his debt that you did what everyone else had done before and hijacked his life to create your fictional story!?! You had other artists creating his Captain America cover when real comic book artists appear in this book. You could defend Chabon by saying that his characters are an admixture of several real life comic book artists... And yet he singles out Kirby. Chabon, I don't care who or what you are but you done wrong by Kirby and therefore you done wrong by be.

Wednesday, June 7, 2023

Book Review - E.M. Forster's Maurice

Maurice by E.M. Forster
Published by: Book-of-the-Month Club
Publication Date: 1971
Format: Hardcover, 319 Pages
Rating: ★
To Buy (different edition than one reviewed)

Maurice Hall leads an unexceptional life. He is neither brilliant nor dense. He is comfortably middle of the road. But ever since his teacher took him aside one day when he was fourteen to tell him about the facts of life, due to Maurice's father being dead, Maurice has known he was different. He felt removed from marriage as being life's goal. He spent years lost in the fog of puberty and adolescence to one day find a hand reaching out of the mist to him making everything clear. That hand belonged to Clive Durham, and Maurice thought that Clive would be the love of his life. Because that is how Maurice is different, he has always been attracted to men, but never known the truth of himself till Clive. They were together throughout their years at Cambridge, Clive introducing him to the world of the Greeks. In fact Clive and Maurice spend several happy years together until one day Clive says that after his recent illness he is no longer attracted to men and now wants to marry and settle down with the woman of his dreams. Maurice doesn't know how to handle this new information. How does going to Rome turn you heterosexual? He is at sea and can only see two ways out, he shall either kill himself or cure himself. Perhaps hypnotism is the answer? A doctor whom he visits says he has a fifty percent success rate. Though it's clear that Maurice can not cure who he is. Yet little does he realize that perhaps Clive wasn't the love of his life. Perhaps life can go on without Clive. Biting the bullet and visiting Clive and his new wife at the ancestral pile, Penge, Maurice meets an insolent young under-gamekeeper, Alec Scudder, who answers Maurice's cry of need in the night. But does Alec spell ruin or redemption for Maurice? Either way, it spells the end of the comfortable suburban life he has been living till now. Because who knows if homosexual relationships, true human nature, will ever be accepted in England.

Maurice was written right before the outbreak of WWI yet was never published during Forster's lifetime. A select group of friends read it and passed it around between them but Forster didn't seem to think that it was worth it to publish the book during his lifetime. This is of course due to the public perception of homosexuality combined with his book having a happy ending. It would have been obscene libel and might have gone the way of Lady Chatterley's Lover. But there's a part of me that really wishes he had published it. To have an established author release a book that was a homosexual love story might have shaken up the society of the time and deservedly so. It shows two different, yet loving, homosexual relationships between consenting adults. I can't help but wonder if Maurice was published earlier, if more authors of the time showed that this is just human nature, that maybe, just maybe, acceptance would be more prolific. And perhaps it wouldn't have taken until 1967 to decriminalise homosexual acts in private between consenting adults. The publication of Maurice being delayed made it an odd duck. It felt like it's time had already been and gone, missing the boat completely. Not to mention that the execution is lackluster with Maurice almost being a caricature. And yet it was so refreshing to find characters who just accepted who they were. Clive Durham never denied that he preferred men. Never. From his youngest yearnings he was honest with himself and his honesty let Maurice realize his own truth, that he too had always been only attracted to men. But was Forster really advocating for being openly in love? Maurice tells Alec that two against the world can do anything. Well, to me, that means to live in defiance of society, to take on the world. To Maurice it means to retire from society and hide in the greenwood like actual fairies. WHAT!?! I thought two against the world can do anything? So true love is acceptable only by complete removal from the society that is trying to conform them? The choice offered here isn't really a choice. You can make yourself an outcast, and let society win, or conform with society and let society win. Don't you get it? Love wins!

Friday, January 17, 2020

Book Review 2019 #5 - Alison Goodman's The Dark Days Pact

The Dark Days Pact by Alison Goodman
Published by: Speak
Publication Date: January 21st, 2017
Format: Paperback, 512 Pages
Rating: ★★★★★
To Buy

After being caught in her bedroom with Lord Carlston on the night of her ball Lady Helen has been tossed out by her uncle. If only she could tell her family it's not what they think! But her duties as a Reclaimer come first and that means only those in the Dark Days Club can know what really happened that night in her bedroom; that she killed the rogue Reclaimer Benchley and lost her chance of ever having a normal life. She has luckily clung to respectability by the discretion of all involved and by being whisked away to Brighton for the rest of the season. While it might seem odd that she has withdrawn to Brighton "for her health" with her new acquaintances, Lady Margaret and her brother Mr. Hammond, they at least lend her an air of respectability while helping to train her in her duties as a Reclaimer. As Lord Carlston's aides the siblings are helping Lady Helen in Lord Carlston's grand scheme to disguise her as a man for her Reclaimer duties. A task that sounds easier than it's turning out to be as she must unlearn all that is feminine in order to be masculine. Add to that that she must also maintain the life expected of Lady Helen and there's barely time to sleep. Though her sleepless nights might be more the memory of an embrace shared with Lord Carlston and worrying over his declining mental health than trying to maintain two separate lives simultaneously.

Due to the rigors of the job and the demands on their bodies Reclaimers at some point have to retire before going completely mad. Yet Lord Carlston seems to be getting rapidly worse. A fact that must be kept from the bureaucratic arm of the Dark Days Club. Mr. Pike would relish the chance to put Lord Carlston out to pasture or in the ground because he was going the way of Benchley. So it is rather disconcerting when Mr. Pike arrives in Brighton. Though he's not just there to monitor Lord Carlston, he's there to force Helen to swear her allegiance to the government and to assign her a mission which she must accomplish without her full training and with only the help of Mr. Hammond. Benchley's Terrene Lowry claims to have a journal that his Reclaimer kept written in the blood of his victims that Mr. Pike is desperate to get his hands on. Only when Helen confronts Lowry his price is unacceptable to her. She must find another way to get the journal, which becomes more desperate when a Deceiver, the Comte d'Antraigues, tells Lord Carlston that the journal is the only thing that will cure his madness. Lady Helen is caught between her duty and her desire and either outcome could prove fatal.

The first book in Lady Helen's series, The Dark Days Club, for all it's darkness in showing the seamy underbelly of Regency England was still nestled in the comfortable world of Jane Austen with the drawing rooms and balls and Dukes plighting their troth. Here that life is gone. Lady Helen is no longer ensconced in society but clinging to the edges as best she can. This is a darker world from the one she was cast out from. There are whore houses catering to all tastes. Cruelty, depravity, sexual congress, all that which Lady Helen was shielded from her entire life is now on full display as she walks through Brighton disguised as a man. She was raised to arrange dinner parties not cavort around in men's garb in back allies. Yet she readily accepts the change as the duties of a Reclaimer. I fully embraced this darker tale, it's kind of like comparing an adaptation of Jane Austen to the Tom Hardy series Taboo, both take place during the same time period, but both show such radically different views of that time period. And the thing I've noticed with me, as I get older, I'm less inclined to the happily ever after and more drawn to the ambiguous, darker endings. To me they feel more real, like they're reflecting the world as it is versus how we want it to be.

And poor Helen, she is trying so hard to fit herself into this new world order but underneath it all you can see she is struggling. The scene that I think best exemplifies this is when she's told that she's getting a radical new haircut. While I've never been a girl who longs for the long hair, there is that connection between gorgeously flowing hair and femininity, more so during earlier time periods. Think how much of an impact O. Henry's The Gift of the Magi had? Or when Fantine has to sell her hair in Les Misérables? Yet for how revolutionary she is being in embracing this new life and the challenges that it presents I think she occasionally is willing to fall back on her upbringing a little too much. She was raised to listen to her Uncle, listen to men, they know what's right, so as soon as Mr. Pike swoops in with all his horrid ideas that he says she must follow she follows them when instead she should tell him to STFU. She questions Pike in her mind yet there's a part of her that just follows him blindly despite disagreeing with everything he says and does. This just shows the larger problem endemic to society and that's women should obey because they are nothing more than property. They are to do what is expected, they can not color outside the lines. Helen might be a Reclaimer, but to her brethren she is just there for their use not her opinions.

Now, to get off my high horse, let's talk about something else, let's talk about the Deceivers. So Deceivers, if they are acting in accord to the compact they have with Reclaimers they skim energy off of people without them knowing it. They are taking a little bit of their life force in order to survive. When I started reading this series I had just been on a day trip to Chicago after which one of my friend's credit cards got a fraud warning. My other friend was convinced that the number had just been swiped by an unscrupulous waitress at the restaurant we had ate at, which wasn't at all the case, because the card had never once left my friend's wallet and had been scanned with a RFID reader. The scanner takes all your vital information and gives it to the thief without you even knowing until you get a ping on your credit card. They can take away your entire life without you knowing it and as I was explaining this a light went off above my head and I realized that is what an Deceiver does! Here was a real life example of the supernatural elements in the book and it made me appreciate Alison Goodman's worldbuilding even more. To be able to explain a supernatural element in terms that those who don't necessarily get fantasy can understand made me so happy! Now I just have to convince everyone I know to read this series and invest in RFID wallets.

In another real world and book world colliding incident I'm going to shift to Mr. Hammond. I know I've talked about this in another review before but seeing as I tend to dream cast books as I read them when an aspect of my dream casting and an aspect of the character come together it's fascinating and a little unnerving and is therefore worth repeating. From the second Mr. Hammond entered this story I have pictured him as Lord Alfred Paget from Victoria. There's something just so sweet and reassuring about this character as he threads his way through the politics and paramours of the royal household that his caring and concern rang true to who Mr. Hammond is. In season two of Victoria Lord Alfred falls in love with Edward Drummond, the Private Secretary to the Prime Minister, which was doomed from the beginning and oh so heartbreaking. When Alison Goodman, through the deplorable Mr. Pike, reveals that Mr. Hammond is homosexual I had a moment of confusion. Had I totally, through my dream casting, learned a secret part of Mr. Hammond's character without even realizing I was doing it? I'm not sure, but it sure looks that way! Whatever the case is, whether I was subconsciously picking up on something or I just can somehow predict the future, I don't know, but it was simultaneously spooky and cool.

Putting my uncanny abilities aside there was an aspect of this story that just warmed the cockles of my heart, and that was to do with Delia Cransdon. Poor Delia who was ruined by a Deceiver who then killed himself to body jump when surrounded by Reclaimers and has since been under lock and key at her parents estate with the asylum looming ever larger. Her parents estate is close to Brighton and Helen views it as her duty to at least tell Delia what she can so that Delia will know she's not insane. Of course there's lots of back and forth with what can and can not be told but in the end Delia knows all that Helen does and is sworn in as Helen's aide. While the book doesn't go into specifics about how acceptable society views it that Helen is championing Delia, especially as Delia is viewed as rather "loose" at the one party they attend, that doesn't bother me so much as how glad I was to see how honorable Lady Helen is. Even before she knew about this other world Helen wanted to rush to Delia's side. As soon as Helen knew the truth and was shown the door by her relatives she reached out to Delia to ease her mind and also to reaffirm their friendship. If their was still any doubt in Helen's maid Darby's mind about whether Helen is on the side of the angels, this would have been proof enough. Lady Helen, saving the world one friend at a time.

Wednesday, April 24, 2019

Book Review - Alison Goodman's The Dark Days Pact

The Dark Days Pact by Alison Goodman
Published by: Speak
Publication Date: January 21st, 2017
Format: Paperback, 512 Pages
Rating: ★★★★★
To Buy

After being caught in her bedroom with Lord Carlston on the night of her ball Lady Helen has been tossed out by her uncle. If only she could tell her family it's not what they think! But her duties as a Reclaimer come first and that means only those in the Dark Days Club can know what really happened that night in her bedroom; that she killed the rogue Reclaimer Benchley and lost her chance of ever having a normal life. She has luckily clung to respectability by the discretion of all involved and by being whisked away to Brighton for the rest of the season. While it might seem odd that she has withdrawn to Brighton "for her health" with her new acquaintances, Lady Margaret and her brother Mr. Hammond, they at least lend her an air of respectability while helping to train her in her duties as a Reclaimer. As Lord Carlston's aides the siblings are helping Lady Helen in Lord Carlston's grand scheme to disguise her as a man for her Reclaimer duties. A task that sounds easier than it's turning out to be as she must unlearn all that is feminine in order to be masculine. Add to that that she must also maintain the life expected of Lady Helen and there's barely time to sleep. Though her sleepless nights might be more the memory of an embrace shared with Lord Carlston and worrying over his declining mental health than trying to maintain two separate lives simultaneously.

Due to the rigors of the job and the demands on their bodies Reclaimers at some point have to retire before going completely mad. Yet Lord Carlston seems to be getting rapidly worse. A fact that must be kept from the bureaucratic arm of the Dark Days Club. Mr. Pike would relish the chance to put Lord Carlston out to pasture or in the ground because he was going the way of Benchley. So it is rather disconcerting when Mr. Pike arrives in Brighton. Though he's not just there to monitor Lord Carlston, he's there to force Helen to swear her allegiance to the government and to assign her a mission which she must accomplish without her full training and with only the help of Mr. Hammond. Benchley's Terrene Lowry claims to have a journal that his Reclaimer kept written in the blood of his victims that Mr. Pike is desperate to get his hands on. Only when Helen confronts Lowry his price is unacceptable to her. She must find another way to get the journal, which becomes more desperate when a Deceiver, the Comte d'Antraigues, tells Lord Carlston that the journal is the only thing that will cure his madness. Lady Helen is caught between her duty and her desire and either outcome could prove fatal.

The first book in Lady Helen's series, The Dark Days Club, for all it's darkness in showing the seamy underbelly of Regency England was still nestled in the comfortable world of Jane Austen with the drawing rooms and balls and Dukes plighting their troth. Here that life is gone. Lady Helen is no longer ensconced in society but clinging to the edges as best she can. This is a darker world from the one she was cast out from. There are whore houses catering to all tastes. Cruelty, depravity, sexual congress, all that which Lady Helen was shielded from her entire life is now on full display as she walks through Brighton disguised as a man. She was raised to arrange dinner parties not cavort around in men's garb in back allies. Yet she readily accepts the change as the duties of a Reclaimer. I fully embraced this darker tale, it's kind of like comparing an adaptation of Jane Austen to the Tom Hardy series Taboo, both take place during the same time period, but both show such radically different views of that time period. And the thing I've noticed with me, as I get older, I'm less inclined to the happily ever after and more drawn to the ambiguous, darker endings. To me they feel more real, like they're reflecting the world as it is versus how we want it to be.

And poor Helen, she is trying so hard to fit herself into this new world order but underneath it all you can see she is struggling. The scene that I think best exemplifies this is when she's told that she's getting a radical new haircut. While I've never been a girl who longs for the long hair, there is that connection between gorgeously flowing hair and femininity, more so during earlier time periods. Think how much of an impact O. Henry's The Gift of the Magi had? Or when Fantine has to sell her hair in Les Misérables? Yet for how revolutionary she is being in embracing this new life and the challenges that it presents I think she occasionally is willing to fall back on her upbringing a little too much. She was raised to listen to her Uncle, listen to men, they know what's right, so as soon as Mr. Pike swoops in with all his horrid ideas that he says she must follow she follows them when instead she should tell him to STFU. She questions Pike in her mind yet there's a part of her that just follows him blindly despite disagreeing with everything he says and does. This just shows the larger problem endemic to society and that's women should obey because they are nothing more than property. They are to do what is expected, they can not color outside the lines. Helen might be a Reclaimer, but to her brethren she is just there for their use not her opinions.

Now, to get off my high horse, let's talk about something else, let's talk about the Deceivers. So Deceivers, if they are acting in accord to the compact they have with Reclaimers they skim energy off of people without them knowing it. They are taking a little bit of their life force in order to survive. When I started reading this series I had just been on a day trip to Chicago after which one of my friend's credit cards got a fraud warning. My other friend was convinced that the number had just been swiped by an unscrupulous waitress at the restaurant we had ate at, which wasn't at all the case, because the card had never once left my friend's wallet and had been scanned with a RFID reader. The scanner takes all your vital information and gives it to the thief without you even knowing until you get a ping on your credit card. They can take away your entire life without you knowing it and as I was explaining this a light went off above my head and I realized that is what an Deceiver does! Here was a real life example of the supernatural elements in the book and it made me appreciate Alison Goodman's worldbuilding even more. To be able to explain a supernatural element in terms that those who don't necessarily get fantasy can understand made me so happy! Now I just have to convince everyone I know to read this series and invest in RFID wallets.

In another real world and book world colliding incident I'm going to shift to Mr. Hammond. I know I've talked about this in another review before but seeing as I tend to dream cast books as I read them when an aspect of my dream casting and an aspect of the character come together it's fascinating and a little unnerving and is therefore worth repeating. From the second Mr. Hammond entered this story I have pictured him as Lord Alfred Paget from Victoria. There's something just so sweet and reassuring about this character as he threads his way through the politics and paramours of the royal household that his caring and concern rang true to who Mr. Hammond is. In season two of Victoria Lord Alfred falls in love with Edward Drummond, the Private Secretary to the Prime Minister, which was doomed from the beginning and oh so heartbreaking. When Alison Goodman, through the deplorable Mr. Pike, reveals that Mr. Hammond is homosexual I had a moment of confusion. Had I totally, through my dream casting, learned a secret part of Mr. Hammond's character without even realizing I was doing it? I'm not sure, but it sure looks that way! Whatever the case is, whether I was subconsciously picking up on something or I just can somehow predict the future, I don't know, but it was simultaneously spooky and cool.

Putting my uncanny abilities aside there was an aspect of this story that just warmed the cockles of my heart, and that was to do with Delia Cransdon. Poor Delia who was ruined by a Deceiver who then killed himself to body jump when surrounded by Reclaimers and has since been under lock and key at her parents estate with the asylum looming ever larger. Her parents estate is close to Brighton and Helen views it as her duty to at least tell Delia what she can so that Delia will know she's not insane. Of course there's lots of back and forth with what can and can not be told but in the end Delia knows all that Helen does and is sworn in as Helen's aide. While the book doesn't go into specifics about how acceptable society views it that Helen is championing Delia, especially as Delia is viewed as rather "loose" at the one party they attend, that doesn't bother me so much as how glad I was to see how honorable Lady Helen is. Even before she knew about this other world Helen wanted to rush to Delia's side. As soon as Helen knew the truth and was shown the door by her relatives she reached out to Delia to ease her mind and also to reaffirm their friendship. If their was still any doubt in Helen's maid Darby's mind about whether Helen is on the side of the angels, this would have been proof enough. Lady Helen, saving the world one friend at a time.

Friday, February 24, 2017

Movie Review - Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
Based on the book by John le Carré
Starring: Mark Strong, John Hurt, Zoltán Mucsi, Gary Oldman, Toby Jones, David Dencik, Ciarán Hinds, Colin Firth, Kathy Burke, Benedict Cumberbatch, Stephen Graham, Simon McBurney, Tom Hardy, Peter O'Connor, Roger Lloyd Pack, William Haddock, Tomasz Kowalski, Svetlana Khodchenkova, Laura Carmichael, Rupert Procter, and Christian McKay
Release Date: January 6th, 2012
Rating: ★★
To Buy

A failed mission in Budapest carried out by British Intelligence quickly grows into an international incident and throws the Circus into chaos. The spy on the ground, Jim Prideaux, is dead, Control is ousted, as is his right-hand man, George Smiley. The new cabal that takes over the Circus, Alleline, Haydon, Bland, and Esterhase, are now running the entire intelligence operation based on "Witchcraft." This magic is an operation that started under Control, which he didn't approve of, thinking that relying too much on one Russian source, no matter how good the material, was dangerous business. But a year after Budapest Control is dead and Smiley is in retirement. Soon new rumors of a mole within the Circus has Smiley coming out of retirement to investigate his former colleagues. With the help of an agent Smiley recruited and trained still loyal to him within the agency, Peter Guillam, and a retired Special Branch Officer, Mendel, the investigation begins. Smiley talks to other ousted agents while Guillam carefully removes files from the Circus itself relevant to their inquires. Soon Ricki Tarr, the agent whose call restarted this investigation which was started by Control himself appears on the scene and tells Smiley about his mission in Istanbul that lead to his certainty of the mole. But spies hold their secrets close and it turns out that even the facts of the Budapest mission are omitting a key piece of evidence; Jim Prideaux is alive. Can Smiley unravel this web of deceit and double agents? Only time will tell.

Taking a labyrinthine book and trimming it down to a film that is only two hours means certain liberties are going to be taken. Instead of slow reveals and doubling back on incidents that we saw before but this time from a different angle this is straight forward linear storytelling at it's simplest. The mission in "Budapest" which in the book we don't learn about until the very end opens up the film and from that moment on I just knew it was going to be drastically different. I had hoped for the better because I didn't love the book, but that hope was sadly in vain. What occasionally bogs down the source material is that there is such depth, occasionally exquisite writing that, taken as a whole, is severely overwritten. Here they went too far in the other direction making everything shallow. There's one scene the film keeps going back to, a Christmas party before everything went wrong. Again and again we return to this shiny happy party, to this time when everyone seemed content. Yet if this was meant to show the subterfuge and secret currents beneath the surface and between the characters it fails miserably. Everything is laid out simply and cleanly making it appear that all lack of knowledge on the part of the spies is based solely on willful ignorance. But then again, a movie which casts Colin Firth as the mole is obviously lacking subtlety. Seriously. It was SO OBVIOUS to me just from the cast list.

Yet what I found oddest about this adaptation was that it was no longer Smiley's story. The book is all about him and his investigation, and yes, while watching Gary Oldman sit in a room reading papers by himself might not have been a movie that would garner box office gold, I still think that this change diminishes Smiley. Which is interesting, because in the book he's constantly diminished by his cheating wife, whereas here she's barely mentioned... so I guess you could say they accomplished the diminishment in a different way? But I have a feeling that wasn't their intent. They filled the screen with so many well regarded stars that they all had to have their screen time and therefore Smiley had to fall by the wayside. And while I might have initially thought this was a bad idea, after seeing Gary Oldman's performance... the less of Smiley the better. Seriously, just trust me on this, he was like an embalmed corpse, and in fact, an embalmed corpse would have had more range and facial expressions than Oldman did in this film. I literally was thinking how even a cardboard cut out would have made a more convincing agent. There's blending into the scenery to be the perfect spy, then there's becoming so much a part of the scenery that you have omitted yourself from the narrative. If you doubt anything I've said here, just watch the scene where Smiley recounts his first meeting with Karla, wherein Karla is played by a chair in some weird student acting flashback and the chair gives a better performance. 

The only benefit to Smiley being sidelined is that he needed a sidekick more than ever and in stepped Peter Guillam, aka Benedict Cumberbatch. Guillam's role is significantly beefed up, which I very much like, because, come on, it's Benedict! But it's also significantly changed. In the book he's a playboy who's in deep with a flautist who he thinks may or may not be playing him with her own husband... he's attractive and blond and bright eyed and bushy tailed, and Benedict could have just as easily played him as originally written as he played him as rewritten. Here Guillam is meek, disheveled, and a closet homosexual. I don't take any issue with him being rewritten as homosexual, his character was already quite fluid in the book, what I take issue with is I feel like this rewrite was done as an apology for the lack of sensitivity in handling gay and bisexual characters in the book. While they proliferate on the pages of Tinker, Tailor, Solider, Spy they are also constantly getting shade thrown at them. If there's a hint of anything not straight about them then it is commented on in a very disparaging way and their loyalties are questioned. To fix this issue all they would have had to do is keep the characters as they are but not disparage them. It seems like a concession that was thrown in for the benefit of modern audiences without actually thinking it through. It's like how I felt when watching the Gilmore Girls revival. I had spent the last year watching an episode a day a had come to realize that the show was extremely homophobic, so how did they fix that? They attempted to throw a gay parade and out one of the characters... in other words, just a token gesture. So not cool.

Though the biggest WTF moment in the entire movie is that by having Ricki Tarr show up far later in the story I'm mystified as to how Lacon got Smiley to investigate anything. In the book the only reason why Smiley agrees to go back in, to investigate the Circus, is because Tarr's story is so convincing. It also provides the audience with an emotional connection. Tarr fell in love on the job and because of the mole his love was killed. See, an emotional investment for the audience. Here by throwing Tarr's story in almost half-way through the movie, why should we even care about it? He's just corroborating evidence he'd already given over the phone. Did they think, this is when the audience will get bored, throw in a love story... uh, please don't insult our intelligence! But time and time again I come back to the fact that just Lacon whispering a few words in Smiley's ear makes him give up all his beliefs and go back into the fray. This once again is a diminishment. He is easily swayed, he can just give up his daily swims in the river and move into a crappy hotel that looks like it was imported from the Eastern Block and get on with the next chapter of his life. I mean, seriously!?! Come on! Your protagonist doesnt' have sufficient motive for their actions and therefore, once again, I see that this movie is nothing more than surface. He can't just investigate because he's told to, he must have a reason. He must have motive. He must be invested in the outcome because otherwise the audience will be likewise disengaged.

There is only one thing I actually liked about this movie. So let's move beyond the trite chess pieces with the potential spies pictures on them and Control's den of files that were somehow not confiscated when he left, let's go to the small school where Prideaux is in hiding, teaching French. There's a reason the book begins and ends with the school and with Prideaux's father/son relationship to one of his students, Bill Roach, because they are the heart of the story. Roach is rather a pudgy kid with big glasses. There's one line that Prideaux delivers to Roach about the fact that when Roach puts on his glasses there's nothing he can't see. This is a call back to a scene wherein Smiley got new thick glasses. This sets up a lovely parallel between Roach and Smiley that I didn't really think about when reading the book. The two of them are both really Prideaux's benevolent guardians. Smiley wants to protect Prideaux while getting to the bottom of the case and makes every effort to kept up the pretense of his death. Whereas Roach is always looking out for Prideaux. Roach has got his back and will protect him with the faithfulness of the converted. This one line makes you see so many connections and call backs and possibilities that I just wonder what would have happened had the filmmakers bothered to imbue the rest of their story with this depth. This one line shows so much depth, and yet for the most part we're just being show a shiny picture of a past party. I know which one I'd rather have, but perhaps there are those out there who can settle for a quick snapshot in time that captures and hides nothing.

Friday, September 11, 2015

Movie Review - Maurice

Maurice
Based on the book by E.M. Forster
Starring: James Wilby, Hugh Grant, Rupert Graves, Denholm Elliott, Simon Callow, Billie Whitelaw, Barry Foster, Judy Parfitt, Phoebe Nicholls, Ben Kingsley, Patrick Godfrey, Mark Tandy, Kitty Aldridge, Helena Michell, Catherine Rabett, and Peter Eyre
Release Date: September 15th, 1987
Rating: ★★
To Buy

Despite a kindly teacher telling Maurice the facts of life before he ventured out into the "real world" he doesn't really believe that he will be like other men with a wife and a home. This thought of his prepubescent self seems to be prophetic as when he's at college at Cambridge he falls in love with his fellow student Clive Durham. They begin an affair of the heart, not of the body. They leave college and continue to be the center of each others lives. This happy situation can not last. A mutual friend, Risley, who has their predilections is caught in a sting operation and arrested and sentenced to six months hard labor for gross indecency. This incident shakes Clive's life to pieces. He and Maurice have been deluding themselves, and from now on they are to be nothing more than friends. Maurice doesn't want to accept this, but quite quickly he sees that Clive is moving on with his life. Clive is soon married and he and his wife Anne are settling into their country estate, Pendersleigh, and having friends round for the weekend and campaigning, living the life of a country squire. They finally convince Maurice to visit, and it will be a fateful one for Maurice. It is during this visit that he meets Alec Scudder, the under-gamekeeper of Pendersleigh. Despite Maurice trying to "cure" himself via hypnosis, Scudder, and his feelings for him, show Maurice that perhaps he doesn't want to change. Perhaps he has found what he had thought he had with Clive? Only this time is it real?

In college my friends and I used to all pile onto one couch in my parent's house and watch movies. They usually would be OK watching whatever film I had planned on viewing, and seeing as this was during the time when I tried to watch an entire actor's oeuvre, they'd sometimes be stuck watching Richard E. Grant for a summer, as we worked our way from Henry and June to Spice World. Ironically, of the two, I would recommend Spice World as the better film, I think Henry and June actually ended up in an impromptu trip to the liquor store in order to finish it. For some arcane and forgotten reason Maurice was watched on one of these nights. I really can not understand what possessed me to suggest it, this was at the height of my James Wilby hatred, seriously, until the Bertie and Elizabeth TV movie I really thought he was a dick cause he could only play them, plus I was also starting a period of hating Rupert Graves which was never fully broken till Sherlock. There are three conceivable reasons as to why we picked Maurice up at Video Station on that summer night, it was either because of Merchant and Ivory, or Hugh Grant, or because I was trying to find a period film that my friend Matt might be willing to watch. I should note that he did not watch it with us. All I remember of the film is that I was shocked we all remained awake through the whole film. Even the most exciting of films, which this is not, often resulted in nap time... hmm, maybe I should have connected letting me choose the film and nap time prior to now.... Needless to say, the film left almost no impression on me, yet I would gladly go back to that night we all watched it just to have one more night with us all piled on that couch never really thinking it would one day end.

If the movie had spent half as much time finding a properly fitting cast as it did fitting every single square inch of frame with Victorian and Edwardian tat then it would have been a flawless film. Instead it suffers from three bad casting decisions, James Wilby as Maurice, Rupert Graves as the laughable lower class Scudder, he can not pull off that accent in the least, and Ben Kingsley as, well, I'm not quite sure what he's supposed to be, maybe Texan? James Wilby is all wrong because he hadn't developed enough as an actor at this point and has no inherent charm like Hugh Grant. Instead we are left with a hero who is basically a cardboard cut out. At times he was so two-dimensional that I actually think having a cardboard cut out deliver the lines would have been more successful. To have the entire film rest on his shoulders is laughable. A strong force is needed for a title role, and by casting Wilby the movie failed before it started. But this was a failure that was forced on them because Julian Sands pulled out at the last minute. Could Julian Sands have made the film work? I can't tell you that... I can say that Wilby has made films I enjoy while Sands hasn't. As for Scudder... well, there it was just the fault of trying to force an accent one someone who was incapable of doing one. I have come to admire Rupert Graves over the years, but he is distinctly working middle class. The lower class accent combined with the bad grammar and language skills didn't work coming out of his mouth. In fact, they were laughable. But nothing will beat the fact that when Ben Kingsley showed up as the hypnotherapist and launched into his indescribable accent, the film, which was at a tipping point from art to farce until that moment, went straight to farce.

The worst part of the entire movie is the confluence of these three in a dream sequence that was obviously ripped off of Vertigo and threw out every bit of style and structure the film had thus far established. Previously the film is unique in that it lacked a score, any music in the film is classical pieces that usually were practical, a pianola, a gramophone, you get the idea. Yet the dream sequence is scored? That's an odd choice. And floridly scored like an untalented Edwardian Bernard Herrmann dropped by. Then the laying of images over each other with color flashes. This is getting more and more like Vertigo by the second. When Ben Kingsley's head started floating in the center of the screen, I was laughing so hard tears were streaming down my face. I just can't rectify this clash, to have a period film that is so distinctly staid and proper to have this stylistic French new wave interpretive dream makes NO SENSE! Much like in Vertigo, the dream is the crisis point of the movie, it's time for the lead to move forward with their life or forfeit it. But just because we have two characters in the grip of a life altering decision as focused through a fever dream doesn't mean that they should be so similar. Fifty years separate these stories, and that is a gulf that can not be breached. Even if Maurice had tried to incorporate the subconscious trying to tell the conscious self it's true desire, even if there had been some psychoanalysis going on, this was with out a doubt the number one way it should not have been handled.

But the film did handle some issues well, and the changes made aided the film and brought more clarity to the story than the book. The biggest change was how Clive's "conversion" was handled. In the book he just realizes as he's nursed back to health that he is no longer attracted to men. This is very flimsy reasoning. Ruth Prawer Jhabvala, James Ivory's usual writing partner, had the inspired idea to actually give justification to this conversion through the underused character of Risley. In the book Risley is important for awakening Maurice's interests and inadvertently introducing him to Clive, and later for recommending the hypnotherapist. Instead we are shown a plausible and slightly hinted at story about what really happened to Risley when he was off stage. Risley is caught in a sting operation to entrap homosexuals, and despite being a Viscount, is sentenced to six months hard labor and may never hold a government position due to his proclivities and his arrest. This terrifies Clive into having cold sweats. Clive is also a well respected member of the aristocracy, he hopes to hold a position in government, and he has been living a double life for years. He has a crisis at a dinner at Maurice's house. Not brought on by his recent illness and the fear of telling Maurice they are through, but because he fears exposure and must give up the one thing that matters to him if he isn't to face the same fate as Risley. This, not only makes more sense, but gives Clive more depth. It shows that his sexual orientation isn't just a phase he was going through, but something that would always be a part of him that he pushed aside in order to survive. The last scene of the movie, with Clive and his wife, after Maurice has confronted Clive about being in love with Scudder, it shows a wistfulness, a longing that what Maurice and Scudder have, that is what he wants but is too scared to embrace.

In fact, much of the film is a refocusing of the narrative on Clive. While this honing in does the story the disservice of sidelining Maurice's family, the truth is their hatred of Maurice doesn't serve the narrative if you are actually trying to make him likable. But the fact is if this film had sidelined Maurice just like it did his family, it could have been a better film. By adding more depth to Clive, seeing the whole story through his eyes becomes far more fascinating then just following around the unsympathetic and flat Maurice. One thing I found interesting though is the film really focused in on Clive as being asexual. He loves men, but never physically. He NEVER acts on his impulses. As we see later with his wife, they too have a very chaste relationship, almost like siblings. The book doesn't go to great lengths to stress the fact that Clive and Maurice's love is unconsummated, and in fact, if it wasn't for Forster's insistence that their love had no physical side in the afterward, I would argue that they did have a physical relationship. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that Forster added that afterward to try to make the book more palatable by insisting that it was only Scudder and Maurice getting it on, and that Clive was above reproach, aside from that "phase" he went through prior to Greece, but he never acted on his impulses. Again, I think that this gives Clive more depth. You see him not as someone who had two loves in his life and is now content. Instead he is a man always thwarted by his desires he is trying to repress. It makes him a tragic figure. In the book Clive is just the awakening and Scudder is the prize. Clive being perfectly content in his post Maurice life. This little tweak changes that all. It adds more to the story and with Hugh Grant's portrayal of Clive we are given the one and only redeeming facet of the film.

Wednesday, September 9, 2015

Book Review - E.M. Forster's Maurice

Maurice by E.M. Forster
Published by: Book-of-the-Month Club
Publication Date: 1971
Format: Hardcover, 319 Pages
Rating: ★
To Buy (different edition than one reviewed)

Maurice Hall leads an unexceptional life. He is neither brilliant nor dense. He is comfortably middle of the road. But ever since his teacher took him aside one day to tell him about the facts of life due to Maurice's father being dead, Maurice has known he was different. He spent years lost in the fog of puberty and adolescence to one day find a hand reaching out of the mist to him making everything clear. That hand belonged to Clive Durham, and Maurice thought that Clive would be the love of his life. Because that is how Maurice is different, he has always been attracted to men, but never known the truth of himself till Clive. Clive and Maurice spend several happy years together until one day Clive says that after his recent illness he is no longer attracted to men and now wants to marry and settle down with the woman of his dreams. Maurice doesn't know how to handle this new information. He is at sea and can only see two ways out, he shall either kill himself or cure himself. Yet little does he realize that perhaps Clive wasn't the love of his life. Biting the bullet and visiting Clive and his new wife at the ancestral pile, Penge, Maurice meets an insolent young under-gamekeeper, Alec Scudder, who answers Maurice's cry of need in the night. But does Alec spell ruin or redemption for Maurice? Either way, it spells the end of the comfortable suburban life he has been living till now.

Maurice was written right before the outbreak of WWI yet was never published during Forster's lifetime. A select group of friends read it and passed it around between them but Forster didn't seem to think that it was worth it to publish the book during his lifetime. This is of course due to the public perception of homosexuality combined with his book having a happy ending. It would have been obscene libel and might have gone the way of Lady Chatterley's Lover. But there's a part of me that really wishes he had published it. To have an established author release a book that was a homosexual love story might have shaken up the society of the time and deservedly so. Think of the ruckus that Alec Waugh created when he published The Loom of Youth in 1917? Though the homosexual relationships in that book were very understated, it still had a major impact, and not just on his little brother Evelyn. With Maurice nothing is very understated, but nothing is lewd either. It shows two different, yet loving, homosexual relationships between consenting adults. But sadly, in this day and age, to some people this is still unacceptable. Sure there has been progress, even in Forster's lifetime the Sexual Offences Act of 1967 decriminalised homosexual acts in private between consenting adults, yet still there is not universal acceptance. I can't help but wonder if Maurice was published earlier, if more authors were to show that this is just human nature, that maybe, just maybe, acceptance would be more prolific.

The publication of Maurice being delayed made it an odd duck. It felt like it's time had already been and gone, missing the boat completely. Their are strong similarities to Brideshead Revisited and one wonders if it was all just a matter of timing that Brideshead Revisited is such a classic while Maurice is left to languish in LGBT centers in College Unions across the world. Brideshead Revisited captured the nostalgic zeitgeist of the time when it came out at the end of WWII. It looked back to the same world that Maurice did. A time when university was a golden haven and the world was still unsullied by strife. If Maurice had been published on the eve of WWI, perhaps it would have been the boon that Bridehead Revisited was to the next generation during the next war? But of course we will never know. And there is one crucial difference. The relationship between Sebastian and Charles, while believed to be homosexual in nature, was never boldly stated as such. Once again, despite both books being touchstones in gay literature, it is the ambiguous, the less bold, that is the most lauded and famous. Much like Dumbledore being gay. It's there for you to see, but if you choose not to, you can close your eyes to the truth. Because if there's one thing that people don't like, which is proven time and time again, it's the inconvenience of truth.

While the book in theory has so much going for it with being progressive and inclusive, in actuality it needed to be better written. It lacks a vital spark that some of Forster's books are lucky enough to capture, and I have to wonder if it wasn't the topic but the execution that made Forster hesitant to publish during his lifetime. In the afterward, or as Forster pretentiously labels it, "The Terminal Note," he says that in creating Maurice Hall he purposefully set out to make a character the exact opposite of himself. And I might add that he failed miserably at it. Authors put themselves into their books, this brings the characters to life. But if they have no touchstone, no common ground with their character, well how can they relate? How can they breath life into someone whom they know nothing about? Whom they share no life experiences with? This results in Maurice being a caricature. He's all bluster and panic and rage, yet never sympathetically. If Forster had included some of his own weaknesses, then he could relate, create some starting off point for the reader to connect with Maurice, instead we are always outsiders, and we don't like what we see one bit. There's a reason his family hates him, pompous, pretending, controlling, ass. In fact, I totally side with his family, I hate him too! Rarely am I ever rooting for a character to commit suicide, but every time Maurice contemplated this, well, I was there encouraging him to pick up the gun and end it all.

What initially drew me into the book was that it was so refreshing to find characters who just accepted who they were. Clive Durham never denied that he preferred men. Never. From his youngest yearnings he was honest with himself and his honesty let Maurice realize his own truth, that he too had always been only attracted to men. Of course it isn't dramatic if people don't have internal struggle and strife. So the book slowly went downhill from the radical notion of acceptance to the time honored tradition of "it was just a phase." Yes, perhaps it's just a phase that Clive went through, but Forster doesn't successfully convey this. It comes across as a lie that Clive's homosexuality was just something that everyone does at university. This amazingly insightful and thoughtful youth ends up towing the party line so that he becomes the honorable he was always meant to be. Ugh. While Maurice himself decides to go in another ludicrous direction, by trying to cure himself. Why do people feel a need to lie to themselves and try to fix things that don't need fixing? Yes, society was problematic, they were breaking the law of that time, but by believing what they were told they don't realize that it's society that is wrong, not them. To seriously consider hypnotism over true love with a member of the same sex? Now that is crazy.

But was Forster really advocating true love over conformity? While Maurice never "cures" himself what he does doesn't seem to me logical. Maurice tells Alec that two against the world can do anything. Well, to me, that means to live in defiance of society, to take on the world. To Maurice it means to retire from society and hide in the greenwood like actual fairies. WHAT!?! I thought two against the world can do anything? Apparently that only means to successfully hide from the world so no one knows what they are. So true love is acceptable only by complete removal from the society that is trying to conform them? The choice offered here isn't really a choice. You can make yourself an outcast, and let society win, or conform with society and let society win. So in other words, society will always win and how you lose is your only real choice. What bullshit is this really? Plus why not just go to a country, like France, where they didn't have to hide like the hypnotherapist suggested? I just don't get it. This book is so revolutionary in so many ways but slowly starts to take back every victory one by one till all we are left with is exile. Grumble grumble. Plus, all that is only touched on and never fully addressed, this idea of what it means to be homosexual depending on your class, to look outside Maurice's insular world, all left behind to run off into the woods. I feel the need to yell out my window, but not Maurice's enigmatic beckoning, more bemoaning in this case.

Wednesday, February 13, 2013

Book Review - Orson Scott Card's Ender's Game

Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card
Published by: Starscape
Publication Date: 1985
Format: Paperback, 324 Pages
Rating: ★
To Buy (different edition then one reviewed)

Ender Wiggin is the shame of his family. He is a Third. On an Earth where the population is still reeling countless years later from the last alien "Bugger" invasion, children are limited to two... unless there is a government mandate or the parents live outside the laws of decency. Ender was government mandated. In order to save humanity, the government has decided that children who are gifted should be trained to be their saviours. Ender's siblings, Peter and Valentine, both showed potential as being the most gifted children ever to be monitored for training. Yet Peter's violence and Valentine's empathy ultimately doomed them to a life on Earth. Still, the potential was so great that Ender Wiggin was "commissioned."

Ender has spent years being monitored to see if he would fulfil the potential of his siblings. Despite appearances to the contrary, the government decides that Ender is indeed their ideal savior. Yet, in order to achieve this end result, the rules will be broken. Battle School has been run in a space station orbiting Earth and training the youths in a very set curriculum of schoolwork and mock battles. Divided into armies and platoons, the students fight each other in a safe environment to hone their skills that will be used against the Buggers. When Ender arrives, all the rules are changed. By isolating Ender and promoting him beyond his age group, they hope to create the greatest military mind the universe has ever seen. He is a tactical genius, thinking outside the box and is able to embrace concepts that other students can't even understand on the most rudimentary level.

Soon Ender is promoted out of Battle School before even reaching his teens and sent out to the far reaches of the galaxy to Command School, where he is trained by the greatest military mind ever, before him that is. Put in a simulator, Ender is virtually learning how to control a fleet and fellow commanders who must answer to him. Yet, deep in his mind he starts to question if the Buggers are the real threat. While back on Earth, his siblings might pose a far greater threat because they have realized something that Ender has only guessed at. They are spurned geniuses, and they have the world at their feet.

A space age Lord of the Flies, a tale of justified violence and uncompromising brutality. This are the criticisms that are often written about this book. Yet... this was not what bothered me. Growing up when I have, the world around me has desensitized me to violence. Not to say that I didn't consider this book violent, I just considered that to be the least of it's flaws. I have never read a book by Orson Scott Card previously, nor will I ever again. While many believe this book to be the pinnacle of science fiction, I personally was left, not only scratching my head, but with the taste of bile in my mouth.

If not for the fact that this was for my book club I would not have finished it. If Card isn't spewing hatred, he is plodding along with his mind numbingly boring plot. This book is very much a battle movie, in that, you can see Michael Bay loving getting to set children into combat with lots of gore and death. This did not make for a good book. Moving past the fact that it is badly written, you really have to give me this, it's clunky, awkward and the little "omniscient narrations" before each chapter where laughable, the language and hatred that spilled out of the book just shocked me. The racism and bigotry floored me. I don't believe in censorship or taking away free speech. But the fact that there are children out there reading this book and thinking this language is acceptable, chills me to the marrow of my bones. From homophobic slurs against a little boy Shen, who comes to be called worm because of his effeminate walk, to racial anti-Semitic language used against Ender's first army leader because he is Jewish, and not only that, having Rose himself "self deprecatingly" joke about it himself shows even more that it's acceptable to children who don't know better! The book just compounds hatred and bile into this big mess that I wanted to fling out the window.

For many years I have tried to come to grips with the fact you sometimes have to separate the artist from their art. A beautiful painting might have been painted by a horrible bigot. A classic of literature might have been written by a pervert, ie, the Lewis Carroll/J.M. Barrie conundrum. Yet this is impossible when the views and opinions of the author are so a part of the text that they are inescapable. After a few chapters I realized that Orson Scott Card must be one of the biggest homophobes the world has seen. Therefore I did some goodreads trawling. Going past all my friends who mysterious loved this book (they are going to have a lot to answer for at book club!) I went to those reviews who gave the book a star. Or as I call these reviewers, "my people." There a found a link to an online article where he railed against homosexuality saying that homosexuals are allowed to marry, so long as they marry the opposite sex, not where their heart lies. Not that Card believes that homosexuals have hearts... because "the dark secret of homosexual society -- the one that dares not speak its name -- is how many homosexuals first entered into that world through a disturbing seduction or rape or molestation or abuse, and how many of them yearn to get out of the homosexual community and live normally." WHAT!?!

Card, you can believe what you want to believe, just like anyone who is reading my blog can, just, don't do it around me. I'm not trying to preach here or anything. I was raised to believe in love. But to spew this bile and not be called out on it. To be lauded with awards for this hate spewing work? You have an amazing mind, you where able to envision how technology would evolve. In the eighties, you saw the rise of the Internet, the rise of bloggers like me and the power we would have. You saw children working on desks that are quite literally our tablets, such as the iPad. You pre-saged all this amazing technology, yet your belief system lives in the dark ages. I'm calling you out on it. Hopefully one day people will realize that your book is nothing more than a platform for your hate.

*If you would care to read the full article referenced above, it can be found here. I will warn you though that it has many inflammatory opinions, none of which I hold with.

Thursday, January 5, 2012

Book Review 2011 #9 - Dodie Smith's It Ends With Revelations

It Ends with Revelations by Dodie Smith
Published by: Little Brown and Company
Publication Date: 1967
Format: Hardcover, 280 Pages
Rating: ★★★
Out of Print

Jill wanders the streets of a town she once knew in desperate times. How things have changed knowing that she could now have anything in any shop window along the high street. Of course, she doesn't want or need for anything since she married the distinguished actor Miles Quentin. Miles is in town to reopen the theatre by testing out a new play that has been adapted from television before moving to the West End. Jill's life is no longer the chaotic life of a stage manager. Now she's there for Miles. She keeps him on schedule, writes his correspondences, buys little presents for the cast, she is wife and personal assistant in one. While out on errands for Miles she wanders into a shop she remembers frequenting in her past. She wants to buy a box of chocolates for the young lad in the play, Cyril. He's never acted on stage and her and Miles want to give him all the encouragement they can. This day proves to be a fateful day. She runs into Geoffrey Thornton, a member for Parliament whom she met once at a function. They get to talking and she learns that his two daughters, Robin and Kit are huge fans of Miles'. They agree to arrange a meeting. Miles, as well as Jill, are charmed by the girls and soon when Miles is busy with the play, she spends all her free time with the girls.

Provincial runs are short though, and after the week the play packs up for London, as do the Thorntons. They all agree to meet often once back in the city, where Jill and Miles are met by their horribly austere and modern new apartment which they loath. It does not look like the play is going to have as receptive an audience in London and the bets are on that it won't last above three weeks. Miles starts to desperately engage Jill into thinking about what they want to do after the play folds. Perhaps an autumn in the country, some time abroad, a new home. Because while she can't place her finger on when or how, things have changed between her and Miles. It all comes out one day when Thornton takes her to see a possible house for Miles' "autumn in the country." Jill is married to Miles because of convenience. Miles is gay. The girls have long suspected this to be the case and have been encouraging their father with the "Thornton Take-Over Scheme" wherein Jill will be there new mother, seeing as their first nymphomaniac, dipsomaniac mother wasn't the best. Things are made all the more easier by the fact that Jill fell in love with Georffrey at first sight, as he did with her. But Jill will not leave Miles after all he has done for her. She is caught between a rock and a hard place and then, just when the pressure couldn't be any worse a scandal is set in motion.

After my second and most recent foray into Dodie Smith's back catalog thanks to my library, I was hesitant to continue. The Girl from the Candle-lit Bath being perhaps one of the worst books I've read in awhile. I am very glad to whomever put this book on hold at the library so that I had to read it right away, because one can't just return a book to the library unread, it goes against Blue Stocking code! I found the characters sweet and endearing. It Ends with Revelations gave me hope that perhaps I read Smith's worst work and now all I had was wonderful books to look forward to, all piled on my desk! The thing that struck me as groundbreaking about this work is the open discussion of homosexuality. Dodie Smith, spending many years in the theatre industry, obviously didn't have the prejudices of many others in society and therefore homosexuality is represented as it is, just the way people are. Robin and Kit are amazingly refreshing in their attitudes. They where raised by tolerate loving people, their grandmother being a friend of Oscar Wilde. To think this book was written in 1967! Many people don't have this openness of mind to this day. There where times when sometimes the slang to refer to homosexuals was a bit dated, so it seems a little derogatory. But keep in mind that while sometimes the words are a product of their times, the feelings behind them are amazingly progressive.

When one thinks that this book came out the year the sexual offences act finally decriminalised homosexuality in England, you realize how amazingly progressive it is. Jill being Miles' beard, which, lets face it, still happens a lot in Hollywood, and the way the Thorntons open up there hearts and in return change everyones lives for the better makes this a very uplifting book. Of course Dodie tries to throw in a bit of a scandal at the end, which wasn't worthy of the characters or their relationships, but she's an author who dabbles in theatre, you have to forgive her need to sometimes throw in an obstacle or two. I'm also glad to see that according to Amazon, this book is going back into print early next year! A book this fun and progressive and modern should not be confined to dusty shelves where the librarian has to basically go into the catacombs to unearth it for a devoted reader like myself!

Older Posts Home