strange and random happenstance

The British do love their holiday ghost stories, so it only makes sense that they took that tradition to the television. Starting in 1971 they started adapting ghost stories written by M.R. James for the holiday season starring acting luminaries such as Robert Hardy, Clive Swift, Peter Vaughan, Barbara Ewing, Lalla Ward, Denholm Elliott, and Peter Bowles. They even adapted a Charles Dickens tale before foolheartedly deciding to create their own original content. Two abysmal stories, "Stigma" and "The Ice House," seemed to put the nail in the coffin of this series. But it was so beloved, with fans clamoring for remastered releases and Blu-ray sets, that that wasn't the end. The show returned in 2005 going back to it's origins by adapting an M.R. James story, "A View from a Hill." Once again they brought in the top names in acting, starting with Pip Torrens, Greg Wise, John Hurt, and many others. After his adaptation of 'The Tractate Middoth" in 2013 Mark Gatiss took over the show delivering it once again on a yearly schedule starting with an original episode in 2018. Thankfully Simon Callow was able to make "The Dead Room" work whereas Peter Bowles had let "Stigma" flounder. But I think that wasn't just down to acting, I really do think it was the material. And Mark Gatiss, bless his heart, just somehow is able to embody a bygone era whereas the writers in the seventies had other ideas. Bad ideas. Incestous flora ideas. And seriously, what was with the blood just oozing out of that poor lady's pores? Aside from that one original episode all the episodes in what we shall call the revival for lack of a better word have been adapted from the work of M.R. James. Except for this past year's. This past year's was adapted from "Lot No. 249" by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. This episode has it all, Kit Harington being a stuffy and incredulous nonbeliever of the supernatural, Freddie Fox being a fey and dangerous man who with longer hair unnervingly looks like his sister, and a man who may or may not be Sherlock Holmes played by John Heffernan, a man who should have definitely said no to that horrid Dracula adaptation by Mark Gatiss and Steven Moffat, and in the coup de grace, a mummy who will deliver your coup de grace. This episode might just be my favorite among the revival episodes. Well, I do love a good haunting by mummy, and Conan Doyle, like the episode adapted from Dickens, seems to work a little better than the stories by M.R. James. I'm not saying there aren't genius episodes adapted from his work, they're just a little more nebulous, a little more open ended. Sometimes, even when dealing with the supernatural, you want a definitive ending, but if you're M.R. James how about some creepy kids wandering off eerily playing the hurdy-gurdy? You think I jest? Just watch "Lost Hearts" and I'll be over here laughing while you're unable to sleep. Sadly it looks like this tradition might be coming to an end due to budgetary concerns. While I only caught the revival episodes the last two years and was finally able to see the original run this year I think this fate is a shame. It's a tradition that survived whatever "The Ice House" was and I want it to continue for many many years to come. It's not like we're going to run out of material now is it? There's always a ghost story to tell for Christmas.

Posted by Miss Eliza at 12:00 AM 0 comments  

Labels: A Ghost Story for Christmas, And the Emmy Goes To, Charles Dickens, Denholm Elliott, Freddie Fox, Kit Harington, Lot No. 249, M.R. James, Mark Gatiss, Mummy, Peter Bowles, Robert Hardy, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

The Hounds of Baskerville
Based on the book by Arthur Conan Doyle
Starring: Benedict Cumberbatch, Martin Freeman, Una Stubbs, Russell Tovey, Chipo Chung, Gordon Kennedy, Kevin Trainor, Stephen Wight, Sasha Behar, Will Sharpe, Simon Paisley Day, Amelia Bullmore, Clive Mantle, Rupert Graves, Mark Gatiss, and Andrew Scott
Release Date: January 8th, 2012
Rating: ★★★
To Buy

Sherlock is bored and on edge, he needs a case to distract him from his nicotine withdrawal. It's been hours since he closed his last case with a rather dramatic incident with a harpoon and little Kirstie's luminous pet rabbit who's gone AWOL isn't going to take the edge off. Thankfully for Dr. Watson's sanity a knight in dilapidated armor appears; Henry Knight. Henry has been haunted his entire life by the death of his father who was murdered by a giant hound twenty years earlier. Young Henry was discovered wandering the moors but his father's body was never found. Henry has recently returned to Grimpen in Dartmoor and he wandered to Dewer's Hollow only to be greeted by the hound of his nightmares. Dewer's Hollow's proximity to the government research facility Baskerville means Sherlock is even more likely to dismiss Henry's nightmares. In fact he would have gladly set Henry on his way back to his psychiatrist if it wasn't for his repeated use of the word Hound. But there's the need for a speedy resolution as Henry's grip on reality is quickly failing. So who is to blame? The villagers keen on embracing the legend of the hound in order to lure in the tourists? The military base which is clearly up to nefarious deeds? Or is there really a giant hound with glowing red eyes? And can Holmes trust his own senses when he believes he's seen the beast himself?

The thing about truly loving something is knowing that it isn't perfect. You can see the flaws but still love it. To blindly love say a TV show means you're not a fan, you're an acolyte. Perfection in this world is rare and a TV show achieving that? Well, it's kind of a miracle. So it sometimes even helps to vent these feelings. To come right out and say "I love you but...." That's how it is with me and Sherlock. In fact, that's how it is with me and every show that Steven Moffat does and Sherlock has the least "buts" of all. I love Sherlock, I really do. It's putting a modern twist on the Conan Doyle canon without being overly predictable like Elementary is and Sherlock is top notch. But... the fact is for a show that has only three episode per season having one dud episode each season is a bit problematical. Yes, I have over time come to grudgingly like these middling episodes, but seriously, is there anyone ready to really go all in on "The Blind Banker?" And let's not even talk about some of the absurdities of this season's "The Final Problem."

What I'm getting at is that "The Hounds of the Baskerville" is distinctly in this lesser than category. Perhaps I had hopes that were too high. I sometimes really need to dial my expectations back. The problem was this is one of the classic Holmes stories combined with Russell Tovey and I let things go to my head a little. I think one of the problems might have been Russell... yes he's perfect, but he's also, in my mind, "a name." He's a great actor but there's also a sameness to the roles in his CV, damaged yet lovable could be his descriptor. So I didn't really see Henry Knight, I saw Russell. This was also problematic with Lara Pulver as Irene Adler in the previous episode. You need to have an actor capable of making you forget who they really are. Which is the genius of Benedict and Martin, I actually see them as the characters. Russell... not so much. But repeated viewings of the episode have gotten me over this issue to focus on more specific problems, like that hound! Seriously, it looked like Zuul from Ghostbusters, and the CGI somehow looked WORSE than a film made in 1984!

But this newest viewing brought a new admiration for this episode, Zuul exempted because there is NO fixing that. Having just read The Hound of the Baskervilles I got to see how Mark Gatiss took the source material and reinterpreted it. Sherlock is all about reinventing what is basically a set of stories that have been told hundreds of times and making them new again. The call backs to the book, which are sometimes just an aside, a single line, to more integrated plot twists are kind of dazzling to watch. You're waiting with baited breath to see what Gatiss will pull out of the book next. From Sherlock's perfume analysis, to Lestrade getting the London out of his lungs, to Dr. Mortimer being Henry's psychiatrist in this iteration, to the dangerous Grimpen Mire becoming the even more dangerous Grimpen Mine Field, phosphorescent animals, John's inferior mind being a good sounding board, Sherlock claiming he's too busy for this case, the episode is just peppered throughout with these lines that are seemingly throw aways, but are SO much more. 

Though just incorporating what was into what is isn't nearly as fun as taking what's in the book and reinventing it, like Gatiss did with the Grimpen Mire. He refocuses on different aspects of the story while using other aspects to throw us off the trail. Instead of Henry being based on the new heir to the Baskerville estate his personality is taken more from the previous... the one driven to death by the apparition of a hound. Add to this a little of the breakdown the new heir suffers after the events of the story and you have a central figure who is far more flawed and therefore far more interesting. Yet what I really love is the red herring of Dr. Stapleton. Spoiler alert, despite whatever you think she's just a red herring. An ingenious red herring, because in the original tale the killer is using the name Stapleton! But the things that brought me the greatest joy was the insertion of two very modern ideas into this very Gothic tale but having them still relate to the story. That's the fact that obviously the small town of Grimpen would try to capitalize on the hound to lure in tourists, even if they do it in a ham handed way... the other is that the mysterious lights that Watson sees are a couple in a car having sex while others watch. This, this would be called dogging.

What I think I took most issue with the first time I watched this was when Sherlock uses Watson as a lab rat to test his hallucinogen theory. Yes, it's scary, but it's more uncomfortable that he would use his only friend in such a heinous way. I mean, seriously!?! If someone did this to me, no matter how much of a genius or how close a friend I viewed them, this would have been the end of the line. But thinking of it analytically I think it makes a point about the bigger horrors that Gatiss discusses in the episode, mainly animal experimentation. No matter which way you spin it animal experimentation is a tricky issue. As Dr. Stapleton says, if you can think of it someone is doing it, and she was just making a luminous bunny rabbit! But there are so many people who justify what they are doing to these poor defenseless animals using the name of science. And you can't deny that valuable data has been collected with regard to these studies. Therefore, how does one come out firmly on the side of the animals and not the scientists? By taking a character we love and turning him into the experiment. By turning Watson into that poor bunny Gatiss has made the strongest possible point against animal experimentation, on any form of animal. And that's why I love this show, warts and all. An old story can be spun into something new and illuminating; literally in the case of Kirstie's bunny.

Posted by Miss Eliza at 12:00 AM 0 comments  

Labels: Benedict Cumberbatch, Benediction, Irene Adler, Mark Gatiss, Martin Freeman, Russell Tovey, Sherlock, Sherlock Holmes, Steven Moffat, The Hound of the Baskervilles, The Hounds of the Baskerville

Frankenstein
Based on the book by Mary Shelley
Starring: Benedict Cumberbatch, Jonny Lee Miller, Ella Smith, John Killoran, Steven Elliot, Lizzie Winkler, Karl Johnson, Daniel Millar, Naomie Harris, George Harris, Mark Armstrong, John Stahl, amd Andreea Paduraru
Release Date: March 17th, 2011
Rating: ★★★
Unavailable 

The creature is born. Abandoned at birth to find his legs, his voice, his reason for being, all on his own. Like a newborn colt he twitches and flails, stumbles and tumbles, grass, rain, they give him joy. Fire brings warmth and danger. What is sustenance? What is cruelty? Is it the pain at the hands of others? He spies on a family, they show him love and compassion. The de Laceys are good if poor. The young couple's father, blind to the horror of the creature's physiognomy, teaches him to read and shows him true kindness. They hold discourses on philosophy and the meaning of life. The Creature has hope, soon destroyed by de Lacey's son Felix and daughter-in-law Agatha. They view the creature as a monster. So the creature will show them what a monster he is. He burns their home to the ground while they sleep. This act signals to the monster that it is time to meet his creator. The man responsible for making and then abandoning him, Victor Frankenstein; whose life of privileged perfection is about to come crumbling down around him. Don't make a deal with a devil if you aren't prepared for the consequences.

While I would like to be one of those people who when hearing their favorite actor is in a play can jump on a plane and go see them wherever the production is I am sadly not one of those people. Oh how I was tempted though by Danny Boyle bringing Frankenstein to the stage with two of my favorite actors, Benedict Cumberbatch and Jonny Lee Miller. But thankfully there's this thing called National Theatre Live which brings the most popular of British Theatre to cinemas around the world, a real boon for this Cumberbitch. So while I couldn't afford a trip to England, I could easily afford a few movie tickets. In fact because of the conceit of Benedict and Jonny switching roles every night I bought tickets to both showings, but after seeing it the one time with Benedict as the Creature, I knew I couldn't watch it again. It's not that it's bad, it's that it's very intense. It has this visceral quality that is so relentless that even though it's been quite a few years since I have seen it this production is still seared into my mind. Like the light bulbs flashing on the stage, it's afterimage is still on my retina.

As anyone who has read Frankenstein will tell you the center, the spine of the book, if you will, is the Creature's story. Therefore this production wisely decided to follow the Creature's journey, and leave Victor where he belongs, as a minor part, not the star. This also worked well for the staging with Benedict and Jonny switching roles each night. The Creature is a rather physically demanding role and to be able to have respite and be Victor every other night, not even showing your face until almost half way through the show, must be a blessing. But it's more than just that, this conceit gets to the heart of what Frankenstein is about. The book by Shelley is about the duality of Victor and the Creature being halves of the same whole. They are one person separated into two. The struggle between man and monster becomes an inner struggle with the fluidity of the role. It's like getting front row seats to someone arguing with themself. One side retreats, the other side lashes out. It's not until Victor admits defeat, admits responsibility for severing himself from the Creature that they are able to move forward, ever onward.

This duality only works because of the genius in the casting of the leads. As I have seen time and time again the National Theatre has a distinct problem with peopling the rest of their productions with stars of equal caliber. Sometimes it's one actor who really stands out as quite possible the worst job of portraying Laertes you could ever imagine, other times it's a more widespread pandemic. But sometimes it's all down to the casting agent and director, and it's a great actor in a role they were just never meant to play. This production of Frankenstein had a pandemic on it's hand as soon as Victor entered stage left. The first half predominately staring Benedict as the Creature and Karl Johnson as de Lacey was perfect. But then again, Karl Johnson is an amazing actor, even if you are only fleetingly aware of him his Twister Turrill in Lark Rise to Candleford, he will easily convert you to loving him, as will his mumbling in Hot Fuzz. But after the de Lacey's went up in smoke so did all quality in the cast. Scenes with Victor's father and his true love Elizabeth were painful. The sign of an uneven production is when you can't decide if it's more painful to watch the rape scene or M. Frankenstein rail against Victor's stupidity.

Whatever imbalance there was in the cast I was at least in love with the set design enough that I could distract myself well. In undergrad I majored in Art but I minored in Theatre. And no, no delusions of being an actor here, despite the fact I was forced to take an acting class, I was tech all the way. In particular set design and scene painting. Therefore a well designed set can literally transport me. Whereas a boring set, like those few ladders used in Hiddles's Coriolanus, yeah, here comes boredom... thankfully relieved by Mark Gatiss and a very short tunic on Tom. But here the set perfectly captured the feeling of a time when we were on the verge of such technological breakthroughs. If you think about the science behind Mary Shelley's writing, what she envisioned, this set just perfectly melds with this driving force of progress. She never once mentions how the Creature was animated, but the constant references to Mont Blanc and lightning make the electical component inevitable. Here brought about by the popping and surging of hundreds and hundreds of Steampunk light bulbs. Combined with the train relentlessly driving forward, the future is coming whether we want it to or not, with the force of a steam engine!

If I had to point to one thing this production needed, I would say it needed a heart. Yes, the Creature does an admirable job of showing the emotions that Victor keeps under lock and key, but does the Creature love? I would say he doesn't. In fact, I would say that it's the lack of love in him and his life that leads him to do so much evil. But Victor doesn't have love either. The heart of the book, if we are to stick with this anatomical theme, was Victor's best friend Clerval. He cares for Victor and loves him and it's his death that finally breaks Victor and makes Victor willing to damn himself and the rest of his family to a similar fate. Yet Clerval is absent. Yes, this streamlines the narrative, making it all about the duality of the Creature and Victor, but while this is all well and good, you need someone to care about, someone to root for, someone whose death will actually make you feel. Because the wanton destruction of half the cast doesn't really dent your tear ducts when they were doing a bad job to start with. Clerval needed to be here, he needed to be an actor of equal caliber to Jonny and Benedict, and in fact... perhaps they could have pushed the duality future? Have a third actor that alternates roles. Because seriously, emotion is needed. Shelley didn't write a story about wanton destruction, but the search for humanity. Clerval is the epitome of that.

Posted by Miss Eliza at 12:00 AM 0 comments  

Labels: Adaptation, Benedict Cumberbatch, Benediction, Frankenstein, Hot Fuzz, Jonny Lee Miller, Lark Rise to Candleford, Mark Gatiss, Mary Shelley, National Theatre Live, Plays, Rape, Set Design, Tom Hiddleston

A Study in Scarlet by Arthur Conan Doyle
Published by: Book-of-the-Month Club
Publication Date: 1887
Format: Hardcover, 131 Pages
Rating: ★★★★
To Buy (different edition than one reviewed)

Doctor John Watson has been invalided out of the army and is looking for a place to call home. He runs into an old colleague, Stamford, who says that he knows someone else who is looking for a roommate, having found the perfect place at 221B Baker Street. He warns Watson that Sherlock Holmes is a little odd. Watson readily agrees to room with this intriguing man, who knows so much about certain sciences, yet doesn't know the earth goes around the sun. One day over breakfast Watson reads an incredulous article in the paper about the science of deduction and thinks it is pure bunkum. Holmes is a little miffed, he wrote the article after all and decides to prove the truth of it by having Watson tag along when he leaves the house on one of his mysterious errands. It turns out that Holmes is the world's only consulting detective and he has been summoned to a crime scene by Scotland Yard. There lies the body of Enoch Drebber. Dead but without a mark on him. Written on the wall in blood is the world "rache." A close examination of the crime scene, a visit to the officer who was first on the scene, a few telegrams later, and Holmes knows who the killer is. Not only that, he is able to produce the killer in the sitting room of 221B Baker Street for the police officers. The explanation as to how he came to his conclusion is a much longer story and involves love, marriage, and Mormons.

Despite watching so many adaptations of the Sherlock Holmes stories, other then possibly reading The Hound of the Baskervilles in grade school, I had never picked up any of Arthur Conan Doyle's books to read. So quite a few years back now I picked up A Study in Scarlet and I couldn't actually believe that this was how the greatest consulting detective of all time started out. Firstly, I was bored. But more importantly it seems more like a treatise against Mormonism than anything else. I mean, in all seriousness, what was Arthur Conan Doyle's issue with the Mormons? Because there isn't just dislike, there is hate emanating out of these pages. Fiery, burn in the hottest circles of hell hate. I couldn't really get past the fact that so little of the book was the actual mystery and so much of the book was a rallying cry against religion that I quite quickly decided to not read any further in the Sherlockian oeuvre until I could rectify my expectations with reality. So, obviously that took a few years, and my newish addiction to Sherlock coupled with the dearth of new episodes made me realize that perhaps the time had come to read all the Sherlock Holmes books. All of them! At least I was prepared for A Study in Scarlet this time around, so there wasn't going to be any surprises. Or so I thought. I was actually surprised that I really liked it.

This second reading of the book produced an unexpected enjoyment and it is all down to Sherlock and Benedict Cumberbatch. I literally can not count the number of times I have watched the nine episodes that currently exist in this series, but that first season, and that pilot episode are easily the ones I have watched the most. From what I remember of all the stories Conan Doyle had written, this modern retelling is a loose interpretation. They pick out details here and there and spin them into something new and exciting. Having forgotten everything in A Study in Scarlet, minus the Mormon hate, I was pleasantly surprised at how much of the original story was actually incorporated into "A Study in Pink." The reinterpretation of the source material made me appreciate it more. The adaptation had streamlined the story into a more taught narrative, yet at the same time it helped me understand the original more. Plus, the little reversals are extra funny. Holmes pointing out "rache" as the German for revenge in the original story, while in the TV episode he smacks down Anderson for the deduction as simplistic. Though it was the cabbie as killer combined with the two pills, one that was deadly, that made me shiver. Oh Gatiss and Moffat, sometimes you really piss me off, and other times, man, you nail it. Also, thank you for not testing the pills on a dog and killing it. I think that is where Conan Doyle went a little too far.

Yet just because I enjoyed A Study in Scarlet more this time around does not mean I was blind to it's flaws. The main flaw is that the mystery is written in such a way that you as the reader can not solve it. Part of the fun of mysteries is seeing if you can follow the clues and the red herrings and come to the same deduction as the detective, and perhaps beat him or her to the punch. The way the story is set up Holmes figures it all out and arrests the culprit. Then there's the long and hateful flashback to America and the Mormons, in which Conan Doyle proves his ignorance, mainly about American geography, I can't speak to the Mormon part, and then everything is handed to us on a plate as a fait accompli. I don't like this kind of storytelling. On a re-read it isn't so bad because you already know who the killer is, but on a first read it just angers me. The god like pretension of an author to think that they can change storytelling convention to appear more intelligent by being the only ones who could solve this crime. Of course you're the only one who could solve it, you wrote it so the reader wouldn't know! And this is why I hate Josephine Tey. She is noted for her interesting and modern narrative structure, otherwise called bullshit by me. Her book The Man in the Queue was one of the worst books I've read, and guess what, you're lack of adhering to conventions wasn't original, here is Conan Doyle doing it forty-two years earlier!

What I still find interesting is that when I first read this book the youth of Holmes and Watson struck me. Over time you get this fixed idea of what they look like, the staid middle aged Victorian gentleman. But this isn't the case at all! Given the supposed date of Holmes's birth and the date of the events in this story, Sherlock would only be twenty-seven years old! I mean, I know you were viewed older sooner then, what with younger mortality rates, but still, twenty-seven is damn young! While I'm not going to bother looking up all the ages of the copious actors who have played Holmes over the years, one thing can be deduced readily, and that they are never as young as he is in his first adventure. While most cases can be put down to the fact that for a series you need an actor who can play Holmes at a variety of ages, so casting older helps. But still, I wonder if it's just psychological. That we, as the audience, wouldn't take such a young man seriously. That he would have the gravity that is expected of Holmes. I of course call foul, if just for my undying love of the Young Sherlock Holmes. But on the whole, Holmes is played as the audience expects him to be. I bet if you asked the random Sherlockian Holmes's age in the first adventure, they'd place him in his mid to late forties. And they would be oh so wrong.

A point of interest that brings about much contemplation to me is that this story, which contained a murder whose like was never seen prior, was serialized exactly one year prior, and published in book form the same year as the first Jack the Ripper killings, in particular the canonical five. In fact, Jack the Ripper is often fused with multiple genres, Sherlock Holmes being one of them. I wonder, did A Study in Scarlet inspire a man prone to killing to commit a crime the likes of which had never been seen? It's almost as if Conan Doyle was egging someone on to take up the challenge Holmes laid at the feet of his culprit. Or was Conan Doyle that in touch with the changing times that he knew this violence, these types of horrific acts of murder, were the future of crime and he caught the spirit of these times in his stories? Because both Jack the Ripper and Sherlock Holmes fascinate us to this day. Did one influence the other in any way or was it just the society of that time? Yes, I might be a bit of a ripperologist, but I had never really thought about the confluence of these two very famous Victorians. It is no wonder that people have been creating mashups... it's something to really get those little grey cells working, as another famous detective would say.

Posted by Miss Eliza at 12:01 AM 0 comments  

Labels: A Study in Pink, A Study in Scarlet, Arthur Conan Doyle, Benedict Cumberbatch, Jack the Ripper, John Watson, Josephine Tey, Mark Gatiss, Sherlock Holmes, Sherlocked, Steven Moffat, The Young Sherlock Holmes

Ashenden by Elizabeth Wilhide
Published by: Simon and Schuster
Publication Date: January 8th, 2013
Format: Hardcover, 339 Pages
Rating: ★
To Buy

Time and neglect have been brought to bear on Ashenden Park. Occasionally loved and cared for, the great estate has fallen into the hands of two siblings after the death of their aunt. They don't know what they should do with this giant white elephant they have inherited. Going back through time to the houses beginning in 1775, James Woods is finishing the architectural touches for his new masterpiece to be wrought in Bath stone, though little does he know that tragedy will personally strike him and his employers will never finish the house. It's 1844 and a new family cares for and loves Ashenden, it is the home of their dreams and their children love it well, but their grandson is feckless. 1938, the house is once again in disrepair, cut up and sold for whatever money the current owner can get for a ceiling or a mantelpiece. 1946, the war arrives and a man who is a prisoner lives where one day he will return a house to lost glory for the aunt of two siblings. Ever rising and falling in it's luck will Ashenden Park be glorious ever again?

It takes a lot to make a house memorable in literature. I don't think it's something that you can set out to do, it's something that happens over time. Manderley, Number Four Privet Drive, Tara, Pemberley, all these places are held in the hearts of readers. We imagine what it would be like to go there, to walk through the woods, to gaze at the family portraits, to be immersed in the world of our favorite story. To us readers these are tangible places that we can visit, if only in our imaginations or between the covers of our favorite book. To have the conceit of following a house through time is at once intriguing and sheer folly. If Ashenden proves anything it's that the engendering of a house in literature can not be forced on us.

In order to fall for a literary house you have to fall for the story. A house itself isn't a story unless it's peopled. Would Hill House be evil and menacing without inhabitants? No, it couldn't be because there's no one to interact with it's bricks and mortar, there's no Eleanor. The house just sits there waiting for occupants. Why yes, Asheden does become occupied, but by having the narrative spread out decades apart over a hundred plus years with different characters there is no way to become invested in the story. The house is an empty vessel and here are some people who occupy it, but don't bother getting too invested in them, they'll be gone soon enough. If there had only been some overarching plot separate from the house itself, like in Mark Gatiss's Crooked House that weaves together hauntings of Geap Manor over a two hundred year period to a conclusive denouement, well, that might have been something I could have worked with, but sadly there wasn't.

As for these people who flit through Ashenden over time. I couldn't have cared less about them. Rarely were they nice or kind, usually they were self centered jack-offs. The way the book is written it's really just intertwined short stories. I'm not the biggest fan of short stories. I like scope. I like having a beautifully built world that I can immerse myself in, which is why I like television and miniseries more then movies.  Short stories are hard to invest in unless they are perfectly crafted little jewels that can stand on their own. By having the stories linked through Ashenden this is never possible. Each story with a jerk and a bump leads to the next and the next, with ever more unlikable characters that I didn't want to invest my time in.

But the short narratives weren't the most annoying thing. What really got me was this fine breadcrumb trail of characters and even objects that Wilhide wove through the book. So to recap, lots of unlikable characters I don't like and don't care to remember are peppered throughout the history of Ashenden like little Easter Eggs. Somebody hold me back. Sure, it's a cute idea, a way to link past and present, but sometimes cute ideas should not be employed because they annoy the heck out of your readers. It's gimmicky and gets maddening real fast. That stupid brown cow pitcher, and I have to say, I actually liked a pitcher of a brown cow more then anything else in this book. I liked an inanimate object more then the people. Um, that's a problem.

This is Wilhide's first fiction book, having written a plethora of books on design and architecture, and I have to say it shows. She was unable to create an engaging book. If her goal was to show the "living history" of the house, well, I guess she did that. Wilhide was able to show how the house changed and adapted over time from it's construction to it's current state of dilapidation, but it was a depressing show and tell that felt like I was reading about the slow death of the house sinking further into despair. Never did it feel like she was exulting the house, never once giving it the people it deserved. A pop star? Please no. Anyone who was nice to the house was skimmed over. One of those nice persons was name Florence Henderson, and I hope that this was historical, because otherwise, WTF Wildhide! No.

Houses all have stories to tell. But does this mean that the stories should be told? No it doesn't. What got me most was that anytime you almost felt invested the story would shift, much in the way Jeffery Eugenides Middlesex did, and you were back at square one, usually with an even more unsavory cast of characters. If you set out to do something unique and different go all in. Go epic, go centuries of detail and dirt. Don't reign yourself in, and don't under any circumstance ellipses over time with little introductory paragraphs at the start of each chapter that are ethereal and dreamlike but are really the type of amateurish and indulgent writing that should have been cut.

Posted by Miss Eliza at 12:00 AM 0 comments  

Labels: Ashenden, British Country House, Crooked House, Downton Denial, Easter Eggs, Elizabeth Wilhide, Jeffrey Eugenides, Manderley, Mark Gatiss, Middlesex, Pemberley, Shirley Jackson, The Haunting of Hill House

Last of the Gaderene by Mark Gatiss
Published by: BBC Books
Publication Date: January 4th, 2000
Format: Paperback, 320 Pages
Rating: ★★★★
To Buy

Wing Commander Alec Whistler fell in love with the town of Culverton, as well as a young lady, when he was stationed there during the war flying spitfires out of the aerodrome. He might have lost the love of his life in an air raid, but thankfully he survived the war and went on to make Culverton his home. Though as the village fete approaches it is a sad day in Culverton because the Ministry of Defense has closed the aerodrome and sold it to a mysterious company, Legion International, "getting us where we want to go." When Legion International breaks the quite of this quaint town with their loud lorries and there black-shirted employees who are a little overzealous in meting out punishment on those that stand in their way, Whistler calls up an old friend with connections to get to the bottom of what is going on.

Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart is glad to help an old friend. Luckily The Doctor is still hanging around, though his imposed exile on 20th century earth, which included a forced regeneration, has blessedly been lifted, the Brigadier asks for him and Jo Grant to check out the situation in Culverton. The instant they arrive they know something is wrong. The head of operations at Legion International, Bliss, is an odd and secretive woman. Plus, when The Doctor sneaks into the air hangers he sees somethings that don't add up with the company's proposed purpose. Why a vertical wind tunnel? Then the very man they came to meet, Wing Commander Alec Whistler, disappears, and his young neighbor, Noah, who was doing some investigating with Whistler shows up in such a state of shock his life is feared for. Whistler isn't the only one who has disappeared... though some have returned. Different. Smiling. Strange. The Doctor calls in the Brigadier to come to Culverton. He needs his governmental clout, and if that doesn't work, he needs his weapons.

It is no surprise to me that when they chose the lineup of books to mark the 50th anniversary this year that among them was a Mark Gatiss book. Besides being one of the writers for the new series he is a fanboy extraordinaire through and through. Even if you haven't read the book's introduction, where he rhapsodizes about his new Zygon and his three different Jon Pertwee action figures, you just need to watch any one of his Doctor Who Confidentials to realize how much he knows about Doctor Who and how much he loves it. He fits into that rare category that David Tennant and Russell T. Davies occupied on Confidential, where he can just talk for hours on the subject but yet make it interesting. It didn't surprise me in the least when two of the three of these men left Doctor Who that Confidential wasn't able to endure. They were that show. In fact, Mark Gatiss can easily be credited with helping Doctor Who survive during its extended hiatus, during which time he wrote many Doctor Who books, Last of the Gaderene being one of them.

Though all these foreknowledge just made me leery that the book might not live up to the hype that I had created in my own mind. I mean, sure, Gatiss is a successful writer outside the sphere of Doctor Who, quite awhile before I even knew who he was I had picked up his first Lucifer Box book, The Vesuvius Club, based on a blurb on the cover by Stephen Fry, and I wasn't disappointed. In fact his fun camp series fits very well within the same genre as Doctor Who. But the fact has to be pointed out that while a gifted writer, he does have a tendency to stick to a proscribed series of tropes. Gatiss has a predilection for a period atmosphere, usually Victorian or WWII, and a desire to bring in the military... of course, the more I think about this, The 3rd Doctor being The Doctor of his formative years, perhaps these themes are actually a result of Doctor Who! The Doctor being stranded on earth in the 20th Century and having to work with UNIT... yes... this might explain a lot. But it also means that when asked to write a book for said Doctor, well, he didn't disappoint.

If you've picked up this book, you are obviously a Doctor Who fan. I can't really see anyone picking this book up on a whim, though I bet it would still work, but don't take my word for it. There is a chance though that you might not be too familiar with this Doctor. What Gatiss has done is given us a little glimpse, a vignette, of The Third to ease us into the story. While Last of the Gaderene takes place while The Doctor is still working with UNIT, he is no longer technically stranded on earth anymore. In a little side jaunt celebrating his freedom we get some classic Jon Pertwee moments as he races through a jungle in his puffy shirt and tight slacks, white hair haloing his head. A karate chop here and there, celebrating the "action Doctor" that he is with his cape flying behind him. In just this short little chapter you see not only his mannerisms and sartorial choices, but with his willingness to sacrifice himself for someone he barely knows, you see that compassion that is a hallmark of The Doctor. You can also feel the glee that Gatiss had in writing this camp Doctor in all his glory. A true passion for your subject can really go a long way to make the reader love the story as well.

But what made me fall for the book was it's pure Britishness. The real star of this book is the village of Culverton and it's beautiful English way of life that is shattered. The fact that the vicar and The Doctor show the most amount of concern for a tire track tearing up the edge of the village green just makes me giggle with glee, much the way I do for all of Hot Fuzz, which has a similar MO. What appeals to this yank about British television and literature is this quaint idealized way of country life. The village fetes and tombolas. The village green and the local pub. A place that is timeless whenever the story takes place. Yet it's the stories that take it one step further, the ones, like Midsomer Murders, that show us the evil that lurks beneath the surface. They break the sanctity of this idealized life. The calm that is broken with an alien invasion force in full black-shirt regalia. Yes please! I feel it in my bones that this level of campy satire with the dandy of a Third Doctor was perfectly realized with this book and is the first book in this select series which I would heartily recommend, despite the fact that oddly, yet again, we have a "legion" mind meld, telepathic thing going on, which I guess must be the theme... we'll have to see if Tom Baker stumbles onto it next...

Posted by Miss Eliza at 12:00 AM 0 comments  

Labels: David Tennant, Doctor Who, Doctor Who Book Challenge, Hot Fuzz, Jon Pertwee, Last of the Gaderene, Lucifer Box, Mark Gatiss, Midsomer Murders, Russell T. Davies, The 3rd Doctor, The Brigadier, Tom Baker, UNIT, WWII

So, earlier, when introducing this three month themed extravaganza I mentioned "The Doctor Who Reading Challenge," and then told you you'd have to wait for an explanation. Well now is the time for said explanation. For us bibliophiles, what better way is there to celebrate Doctor Who then to read lots and lots of Doctor Who books? In fact, the written and audio books should be lauded as what kept the show alive during the years it was dark. We got new stories from new authors, some of which went on to then write on the show! Mark Gatiss anyone? So yeah books and yeah Doctor Who!

The idea behind this book challenge is that there are 11 Doctors so far (remember we're not quite 100% sure what they're doing with John Hurt and the 12th doesn't come round supposedly till Christmas, I'm guessing it will be at the 50th though). The 50th anniversary is in the 11th month of the year. So the idea is to each month count down till the 50th by reading a book staring that months Doctor. So January would be the 1st Doctor all the way till November would be the 11th Doctor, you get the idea. I'm more condensing this into an epic read crammed into three months, and this is for a multitude of reasons, my other themed months being one of them. But my main reason was I was figuratively paralyzed... what books to read? I mean, I have a lot of 9th and 10th Doctor books lying about, and a few 11th. Then there's a few old 4th Doctor paperbacks I have somewhere... but which ones to read? Then I started to make a list based on authors I love who wrote Doctor Who books, you know, Mark Gatiss, Paul Magrs, George Mann, those ones... but so many of them are out of print. Grrr I say.

So the BBC came to my rescue. I don't know if they had planned this all along for the 50th, or, if hearing about this book challenge, went "Aha! A marketing idea we can exploit!" So what they did was re-release eleven books, one for each Doctor, in nifty new and special 50th Anniversary editions (seen above on my Doctor Who shelf, and yes, I have a Doctor Who shelf, no judging). So viola! My reading list was made. Of course the books didn't come out till April, so there's four months wasted right there, so time to cram some reading in now! Therefore, over the next few weeks, one of the features of my 50th Anniversary Special is the review of said books... here's hoping these live up to the name of The Doctor (whatever that name might be)!

Posted by Miss Eliza at 12:00 AM 0 comments  

Labels: 12th Doctor, Doctor Who, Doctor Who 50th Anniversary, Doctor Who Book Challenge, George Mann, John Hurt, Mark Gatiss, Paul Magrs, Reading Challenge, The 10th Doctor, The 11th Doctor, The 9th Doctor

You might be asking yourself, what can I watch to get into that Royal frame of mind? Never fear, I watch way too many BBC productions and have a handy little list for you. It's even a little more off beat than you might expect, thinking I'll be all, just go watch Helen Mirren in The Queen... but no! And it's not because I haven't gotten around to watching that movie cause I'm kind of ho hum on the whole Helen Mirren thing, this is more, what I feel the Jubilee is about.

"Victoria and Albert" - Victoria Hamilton and Jonathan Firth
Get the all the haps on the only other Queen to make it 60 years. Very sweet story that I find is a far better dramatization than the newer The Young Victoria. I know, that's sacrilege saying that a non-Julian Fellowes adaptation is better than a Julian Fellowes adaptation, but I felt that the movie just took everything from the miniseries and condensed it down time wise with prettier actors (not dissing Jonathan Firth, the hottie), so we lose a lot of the interest and day to day mundanities and trials and tribulations that make Victoria and Albert amazing. Plus, Victoria being played by a Victoria, how can you miss out on that coolness, not to mention, she knocked it out of the park. Also, a young James Callis pre Battlestar Galactica and even pre Bridget Jones.

"Wallis and Edward" - Stephen Moore Campbell and Joely Richardson
Learn all you could want to know about Wallis and Edward without having to watch anything by Madonna. While I have to say that this love story doesn't interest me in the least, they are two selfish people who ended up befriending Nazis, needless to say, this is the reason that Queen Elizabeth is Queen! If Edward hadn't abdicated, George VI, Elizabeth's dad Bertie, would not have become king and then she would have never been Queen. Also Germany would probably rule us all... but that's beside the point. This is very well acted and stars some of my favorite actors, but still, be prepared for selfish people.

"Bertie and Elizabeth" - James Wilby and Juliet Aubrey
Before The King's Speech, the BBC did this wonderful little story about Bertie and his ascension to the throne. Most notable for me was this was the first time that I liked James Wilby in anything! Not that I disliked him before, he just is really really good an playing asses, Howards End, Gosford Park, I could keep going. Just a sweet little story about what happens when you unexpectedly become king... I'm sure there's probably some cross over with The King's Speech... but the thing is, I still haven't seen that yet... ok, yell at me now... it's Colin Firth and I should know better.

"The Queen's Sister" - Toby Stephens and Lucy Coho
A great in depth look at the wild younger sister of Queen Elizabeth, Princess Margaret. This was the first time I was exposed to the wonderful acting of Lucy Coho, who has now been in everything from Upstairs, Downstairs to Torchwood. I mainly watched it for Toby Stephens, that glorious acting son of Maggie Smith, but I found the story so interesting. While Elizabeth was keeping the country together after the death of her father, her sister was the flamboyant one. A troublesome marriage to a photographer who she later divorced, yet introduced her to a Bohemian lifestyle. Drugs, sex, it's got everything that you want to associate with royalty who try to keep their noses clean.

"Doctor Who - The Idiot's Lantern"
Now, you might be wondering why I'm recommending a random episode of Doctor Who from David Tennant's first season... I know, you're thinking I'm just trying to promote my love of Mark Gatiss, and, while yes, this could be true, I have other motives. This episode takes place during Queen Elizabeth's coronation! Sure there's an alien using television to control the world, but really, watch the costumes, the block party, the feeling that permeates this episode. This is what Britain was like when Elizabeth became Queen... I won't comment as to the veracity of their being aliens or not. Oh, and there's bunting!

Posted by Miss Eliza at 12:00 AM 0 comments  

Labels: Bertie and Elizabeth, Diamond Jubilee, Doctor Who, Gosford Park, Jonathan Firth, Julian Fellowes, Mark Gatiss, Queen Victoria, Stephen Moore Campbell, The 10th Doctor, Toby Stephens, Wallis and Edward

Fuck the Daleks! I'm so damn sick of them, sure this time Mark Gatiss got to write about them, and sure, we've got Winston Churchill and the war, but, not another freakin' Dalek episode! Plus, did anyone else keep thinking that they basically just wanted to do a World War II version of Star Wars while watching this? I love Mark Gatiss' enthusiasm, but still, this is the first meh episode for me, in fact Mark Gatiss and Confidential were far better than the episode itself. Bill Paterson and his amazing acting saved this for me, but that's about it. So of course, it makes sense to have the Daleks show up in World War II, they have so much in common with the Nazis that the Nazis were probably their inspiration. And Mark Gatiss has an amazing grasp at capturing other time periods, even if the "wishes were kisses" line was a little too hackneyed for me. I liked that the Doctor is called in by Winston, who is not only an old friend, but openly covets the TARDIS and will do anything to win the war, anything... even if it's the new "ironsides" aka, Daleks in disguise to trick the Doctor into helping them re-jump start the new Dalek evolution. Servile Daleks are funny, but then we're all back to colored Daleks and they escape, I'm sure to return again and again and again and again... at least Mark Gatiss didn't give me any false hope that they were gone forever... so that's one plus. But overall this episode felt too contained, too small in scope. Here we have the greatest war the world has ever faced combined with the Daleks and the Doctor who together had the greatest war time has ever faced and we get these small, confined sets that were claustrophobic and lacking in the scope of these great historical events. I did like the rage the Doctor displayed and the way Amy totally embodies all that is good in humanity. But could we do all this with a new villain? Or a less used old villain? All I kept thinking was, damn, they should just go get Captain Jack and end this in five minutes. One sweet twist, Amy's never seen the Daleks... which is impossible right? And the crack... is time fracturing? Is the Doctor in the correct timeline? Very interesting! Personally I can't wait for next week though... River Song AND the Weeping Angels! Heaven! Or hell... if you think about the nightmares it will probably induce...

Also I bet you can guess my opinion of the game trailer they showed seeing as I've made my opinion of the Daleks so well known. Looks clunky, looks like way too many Daleks, looks like a pass. And I'm usually the one defending my movies and tv shows being turned into video games! Shocker!

Posted by Miss Eliza at 12:00 AM 2 comments  

Labels: Amy Pond, Bill Paterson, Captain Jack, Daleks, Doctor Who, Ironsides, Mark Gatiss, Nazis, River Song, TARDIS, The 11th Doctor, The Weeping Angels, Video Game, Winston Churchill, World War II

As sure as the sun rises and sets there is sure to be another interpretation of Sherlock Holmes. With the recent big screen adaptation out today I thought it might be time for some pontification on that most memorable of detectives. While I thoroughly enjoyed Robert Downey Junior as Holmes with a cast rounded out by some wonderful BBC staples, I could always use another hit... though not the same kind as Holmes himself. I'm eagerly awaiting what, in the terms of geekdom, might be the most anticipated of collaborations. Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss are joining forces (yes that's me squealing in the background) to bring a new twist to Holmes. Sure they have been more recently tied up with Doctor Who, but that doesn't mean this will be anything like The Doctor... how about Moffat's Jekyll reimagining? Even if it is supposedly set in modern times, with Benedict Cumberbatch, Martin Freeman and Rupert Graves we have a cast that I am certain to love. The three 90 minute films are in production now and I just could only wish for a Tardis to jump on into the future to catch an episode. But the real question is, how does Steven Moffat have the time? With writing the new Tin Tin movie, being the new show-runner for Doctor Who and now this!?! Sheer multitasking genius!

All this talks of the new Holmeses leads me to a very important thought... who really is the definitive Holmes? Basil Rathbone or Jeremy Brett... how do they stack up against each other. And are we to factor in parodies? Because then we have Michael Caine facing Peter Cook! Also what if we factor in Holmes' history and take into account Ian Richardson on Murder Rooms (which if you haven't watched, you really must)? The truth is, each actor brings something unique and different to the role and that one can not be compared to another or even to how we view Holmes in our minds. Of course, this being me, I do have a favorite... from a love of Egyptology and being in love with the star at an impressionable age, Nicholas Rowe as Holmes in The Young Sherlock Holmes will always be my favorite. He does not detract from the original, but adds a new layer of awesomeness. I'm sorry Elizabeth had to die... but I did like you saying my name over and over even if you did cause me to have an unnatural fear of pastries.

The history of Holmes is fascinating in and of itself. Doyle never wrote the Deerstalker, that was an invention of the Illustrator. And when Doyle had Holmes killed off, he was brought back to life by mass consensus. There are societies and spin offs and scholars and every manner of devotion possible, it's no wonder there are so many adaptations!

Posted by Miss Eliza at 12:00 AM 3 comments  

Labels: Arthur Conan Doyle, Doctor Who, Ian Richardson, Jeremy Brett, Mark Gatiss, Martin Freeman, Nicholas Rowe, Robert Downey Junior, Sherlock Holmes, Steven Moffat, The Doctor, The Young Sherlock Holmes