Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Swiss Toni is tall
"Are you really that tall?"
No love, I'm being operated by Frank Oz. Dear oh dear.
Hilarious report of the Viking assault on Trent Bridge this weekend.
No love, I'm being operated by Frank Oz. Dear oh dear.
Hilarious report of the Viking assault on Trent Bridge this weekend.
Monday, July 30, 2007
Weekend Reading
Over the weekend I have read:
All VERY enjoyable. Dark. Darker. Violent with a serious dose of the funnies.
Brilliant stuff.
- Lawrence Block - Everybody Dies (A classic Matt Scudder story)
- Ian Rankin - The Hanging Garden (A classic Rebus story)
- Christopher Brookmyre - The Sacred Art of Stealing (minus my beloved Parlabane [beloved twice over], but nevertheless a charming magician's narrative of twisty wrong-doing: click on the link for Brookmyre's own inimitable summary of the press coverage!)
All VERY enjoyable. Dark. Darker. Violent with a serious dose of the funnies.
Brilliant stuff.
Where's Freema?
I mean, if this IS the cover of the new box-set for season 3, gawd, she must be WELL pissed off.
I'm actually beginning to feel sorry for her...
I'm actually beginning to feel sorry for her...
Friday, July 27, 2007
Harry Potter 7 (some spoilers may appear)
So, it's all over.
You read it?
You read all seven books?
You read book 7 (The Deathly Hallows)?
Okay, get on with it.
What did I think?
Well, I would have to say I am something of a moderately interested reader of the Potter books. Neither wildly addicted nor dismissive. Maybe that helps. Like my previous post on drugs, I reiterate that I'm not particularly in favour of any excecssive behaviour. Yes, we can all be occasionally excessive but, like dining out all the time, if it's your everyday habit then it does lose its flavour and appeal over time because it is no longer a gleeful pleasure, a rare delight.*
I digress.
The point is that I am not a standing-outside-Borders person for each new book. Hell, I wasn't even a order-it-as-soon-as-the-release-date-announced person. I came to the HP party late (I first joined in around book three, and perhaps for that reason it remains one of my favourites and perhaps the best of the films so far), and proceeded to recap with two and then one. I read four VERY late indeed, having seen a friend become traumatised at Rowling killing off a character which caused them to stop reading for quite some time. But when I got to it, I enjoyed that one very much indeed (as I did the rather messy and unwieldy film version which nevertheless still charmed me and ultimately is now something of a favourite. Yes, I know I have bad reasons at heart...). Book five I think I bought - and gave away soon after. There was a lot I liked about it - the large amount of Sirius probably helped - but somehow it was really losing its way. Six was, kinda, better, but really did feel like it was getting to the end of the saga.
And so to seven.
Well, I liked it. No really, I REALLY liked it. After two (slightly) 'meh' volumes - even if I did still enjoy galloping through the prose - I was gripped from the start. I remembered that I did actually care about these characters - good and bad (though obviously more the good than bad) - and I felt rather like Spike at the end of Buffy: "I want to see how it ends".
And I cried. I did. I cried for all the deaths - those both sudden and those more predictable. I cried for the tension and the violence, for the heroism, for the survival. And for Dumbledore (all over again). Heck, I couldn't help myself, I cried for Snape: poor, flawed Snape.
And then there was that epilogue.
Urgh.
Sorry. JKR you should really have thrown away your finale from all those years ago. What came before it showed how far you had come with this narrative; what let it down was that epilogue. Yes, it gave resolution but I bet right now there are a thousand fan-fics and more doing an alternative job of your conclusion, if indeed it needed one at all.
Still, thanks for the ride.
Now can all you hyper-positive HP fans and hyper-negative HP haters all please find something else to do. I'm going to miss the fun of the books but really, just keep on reading (something). It's surely what JKR would want - that the reading does not begin or end with Harry.
* Exceptions can always be made, but even I temper my imbibing of Scottish acting, fan-fiction, sci-fi, wonderful music, great films etc etc. All day, every day: even I would begin to take such delights for granted.
You read it?
You read all seven books?
You read book 7 (The Deathly Hallows)?
Okay, get on with it.
What did I think?
Well, I would have to say I am something of a moderately interested reader of the Potter books. Neither wildly addicted nor dismissive. Maybe that helps. Like my previous post on drugs, I reiterate that I'm not particularly in favour of any excecssive behaviour. Yes, we can all be occasionally excessive but, like dining out all the time, if it's your everyday habit then it does lose its flavour and appeal over time because it is no longer a gleeful pleasure, a rare delight.*
I digress.
The point is that I am not a standing-outside-Borders person for each new book. Hell, I wasn't even a order-it-as-soon-as-the-release-date-announced person. I came to the HP party late (I first joined in around book three, and perhaps for that reason it remains one of my favourites and perhaps the best of the films so far), and proceeded to recap with two and then one. I read four VERY late indeed, having seen a friend become traumatised at Rowling killing off a character which caused them to stop reading for quite some time. But when I got to it, I enjoyed that one very much indeed (as I did the rather messy and unwieldy film version which nevertheless still charmed me and ultimately is now something of a favourite. Yes, I know I have bad reasons at heart...). Book five I think I bought - and gave away soon after. There was a lot I liked about it - the large amount of Sirius probably helped - but somehow it was really losing its way. Six was, kinda, better, but really did feel like it was getting to the end of the saga.
And so to seven.
Well, I liked it. No really, I REALLY liked it. After two (slightly) 'meh' volumes - even if I did still enjoy galloping through the prose - I was gripped from the start. I remembered that I did actually care about these characters - good and bad (though obviously more the good than bad) - and I felt rather like Spike at the end of Buffy: "I want to see how it ends".
And I cried. I did. I cried for all the deaths - those both sudden and those more predictable. I cried for the tension and the violence, for the heroism, for the survival. And for Dumbledore (all over again). Heck, I couldn't help myself, I cried for Snape: poor, flawed Snape.
And then there was that epilogue.
Urgh.
Sorry. JKR you should really have thrown away your finale from all those years ago. What came before it showed how far you had come with this narrative; what let it down was that epilogue. Yes, it gave resolution but I bet right now there are a thousand fan-fics and more doing an alternative job of your conclusion, if indeed it needed one at all.
Still, thanks for the ride.
Now can all you hyper-positive HP fans and hyper-negative HP haters all please find something else to do. I'm going to miss the fun of the books but really, just keep on reading (something). It's surely what JKR would want - that the reading does not begin or end with Harry.
* Exceptions can always be made, but even I temper my imbibing of Scottish acting, fan-fiction, sci-fi, wonderful music, great films etc etc. All day, every day: even I would begin to take such delights for granted.
Dopes
Having spent most of the day immersed in the final Harry Potter (more on which in another post), I have also therefore been conveniently missing most of the claptrap being bandied about in relation to drugs on todays' news programmes. Given that by the time Cloud left for work this morning I was practically screaming at the radio for its nonsensical claptrap, this was probably a good move on my part. [Best line if Cloud hasn't stolen it already, 'Eminem became addicted to sleeping pills because of cannabis': to echo Kate Ashfield "WHAAAATTT?!!!"]
Despite repeated attempts by journalists/interviewers to make a claim otherwise for what the study said, it is NOT the case that if you smoke cannabis once or twice you are 40% more likely to experience mental health problems.
What the study actually said - as far as said journalists/interviewers would allow the authors and commentators to say - was that looking at the group as a whole of those who smoked cannabis (from those imbibing every week, day, hour to those who had had some occasional, irregular or one-off usage), users were 40% more likely to develop some mental health problems. So the impact is averaged out. I would say that suggested that high users were much more likely: a fact that has been well-known for many years, if not decades, and that frankly you'd have to be pretty dense not to have anticipated. Although, there is the issue of whether the propensity of mental ill health comes before the drug use, stimulates the likelihood of drug use, and how it exacerbates the effects of drug use: heck, even the BBC site had to allow them this one -
So, how helpful is the current media attention on this particular study into the existing research on the impact of cannabis use and its association with mental health difficulties? [Note how I'm on about the media coverage more especially than the Lancet's meta-study of existing research].
I would actually say the hoo-ha 'not very helpful at all'. Why? Because it isn't really telling us anything most people didn't already know. Doing something excessively doesn't do you any good. Moreover, the definition of 'excessively' may be difficult to define and could vary across individuals. So it's probably not a great idea to do it at all but mostly the paranoia surrounding an individual's usage is - for most people - going to be much worse than any impact the drug may have. Oh My God! You smoked one spliff! You're obviously now going to be 40% more likely to develop schizophrenia!
Er. No.
The study's public profile has more particularly been linked with the perception/reality that Gordon Brown would like to roll back the Blair government's previous decision to reclassify cannabis. Well, as I have already indicated, I actually think closer review of current figures may reveal classification to be something of a decoy duck problem. Would it be practical to establish particular forms of cannabis as a higher category? Not sure? But if you can't split it - and my sense is it would be a 'mare to do so for all regulatory and policing bodies concerned - then how would raising back up the classification help? Would that discourage (young) users? I don't think so.
Mental health difficulties cause incredible pain and distress to those experiencing them, and to the people around them. I have no wish to dismiss just how painful that can be. But it seems to be a gross misuse of statistics to lay so much blame at the door of one drug and to scaremonger the public's perception of its impact. Having seen first hand the negative impact of any excess on the people around me - cannabis, alcohol, tobacco - I would never allow anyone to think that I am blase about the effects of such habits. But what I do rail against is indiscriminate use of statistics to make crappy soundbite points about such a serious issue as the overall mental wellbeing of human beings.
Rant over.
Despite repeated attempts by journalists/interviewers to make a claim otherwise for what the study said, it is NOT the case that if you smoke cannabis once or twice you are 40% more likely to experience mental health problems.
What the study actually said - as far as said journalists/interviewers would allow the authors and commentators to say - was that looking at the group as a whole of those who smoked cannabis (from those imbibing every week, day, hour to those who had had some occasional, irregular or one-off usage), users were 40% more likely to develop some mental health problems. So the impact is averaged out. I would say that suggested that high users were much more likely: a fact that has been well-known for many years, if not decades, and that frankly you'd have to be pretty dense not to have anticipated. Although, there is the issue of whether the propensity of mental ill health comes before the drug use, stimulates the likelihood of drug use, and how it exacerbates the effects of drug use: heck, even the BBC site had to allow them this one -
[the authors] could not rule out the possibility that people at a higher risk of mental illness were more likely to use the drugSo my point is this. We're generally getting muddled on cause and effect here. Also, screaming about classification is misdirection. I don't think it was especially smart to change the classification, but it was changed and despite a lot of shouting by all accounts "the incidence of schizophrenia has not shown any significant change in the past 30 years" despite (any) changes in cannabis usage. I can't find the figures but I'm also pretty sure that cannabis use isn't particularly rising, but what is/may be changing is the type of cannabis generally available.
So, how helpful is the current media attention on this particular study into the existing research on the impact of cannabis use and its association with mental health difficulties? [Note how I'm on about the media coverage more especially than the Lancet's meta-study of existing research].
I would actually say the hoo-ha 'not very helpful at all'. Why? Because it isn't really telling us anything most people didn't already know. Doing something excessively doesn't do you any good. Moreover, the definition of 'excessively' may be difficult to define and could vary across individuals. So it's probably not a great idea to do it at all but mostly the paranoia surrounding an individual's usage is - for most people - going to be much worse than any impact the drug may have. Oh My God! You smoked one spliff! You're obviously now going to be 40% more likely to develop schizophrenia!
Er. No.
The study's public profile has more particularly been linked with the perception/reality that Gordon Brown would like to roll back the Blair government's previous decision to reclassify cannabis. Well, as I have already indicated, I actually think closer review of current figures may reveal classification to be something of a decoy duck problem. Would it be practical to establish particular forms of cannabis as a higher category? Not sure? But if you can't split it - and my sense is it would be a 'mare to do so for all regulatory and policing bodies concerned - then how would raising back up the classification help? Would that discourage (young) users? I don't think so.
Mental health difficulties cause incredible pain and distress to those experiencing them, and to the people around them. I have no wish to dismiss just how painful that can be. But it seems to be a gross misuse of statistics to lay so much blame at the door of one drug and to scaremonger the public's perception of its impact. Having seen first hand the negative impact of any excess on the people around me - cannabis, alcohol, tobacco - I would never allow anyone to think that I am blase about the effects of such habits. But what I do rail against is indiscriminate use of statistics to make crappy soundbite points about such a serious issue as the overall mental wellbeing of human beings.
Rant over.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Note to self: watching excessive enjoyable quantities of TV with Scottish actors has a distinct impact on my vocal manners
Shite.
Spent a fair bit of time over the last two days watching the six glorious episodes of "Takin' Over the Asylum". I had not forgotten how bloody wonderful this programme was and re-acquainting myself with its narratives and characters was just a delight.
Unfortunately, by the time Cloud came home I ended up having to virtually gag myself for an hour after he mercilessly pointed out that I sounded as if I was newly arrived from the fair city I spent several hours watching.
As I said: shite.
Spent a fair bit of time over the last two days watching the six glorious episodes of "Takin' Over the Asylum". I had not forgotten how bloody wonderful this programme was and re-acquainting myself with its narratives and characters was just a delight.
Unfortunately, by the time Cloud came home I ended up having to virtually gag myself for an hour after he mercilessly pointed out that I sounded as if I was newly arrived from the fair city I spent several hours watching.
As I said: shite.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Hurrah for Clare (and Harry)!
I'm not even on the scale of fandom for Harry Potter reading/watching*, but I do appreciate a good defence in the face of criticism (even though a large proportion of readers here appear to have spent most of the last few days buried in book 7 themselves so probably not many critics here...).
Anyway, it's with great delight I point you to Clare and her spirited protection of escapist reading.
As I have said before, I liked 'The Da Vinci Code' because it was a page-turning bit of fun. I like the Harry Potters' for the same reason. I don't need - let alone want - all my reading to be serious or 'good literature' (whatever the hell that is). I have spent - and still spend - vast amounts of time reading quite dense texts. I like doing that and some of the stuff I read for pleasure would possibly baffle some folk. Nevertheless, I also like to coast through some books and that's where certain fiction comes in.
Having said this though, it seems only fair to point out that even if the Dan Browns and JK Rowlings of the world can be acknowledged as not demonstrating the pinnacles of western literature, that is not to say that they do not present worthwhile ideas. To take the Potters, we get the tracking of growing up, the death of family and loved ones, betrayals, learning emotions from experiences, education... and all wrapped in a magical bag of spells, werewolves, battles of good and evil and the power of love. Awh. What's not to like?
* yes, yes, I know I have watched the GoF several times. Shoot me.
Anyway, it's with great delight I point you to Clare and her spirited protection of escapist reading.
As I have said before, I liked 'The Da Vinci Code' because it was a page-turning bit of fun. I like the Harry Potters' for the same reason. I don't need - let alone want - all my reading to be serious or 'good literature' (whatever the hell that is). I have spent - and still spend - vast amounts of time reading quite dense texts. I like doing that and some of the stuff I read for pleasure would possibly baffle some folk. Nevertheless, I also like to coast through some books and that's where certain fiction comes in.
Having said this though, it seems only fair to point out that even if the Dan Browns and JK Rowlings of the world can be acknowledged as not demonstrating the pinnacles of western literature, that is not to say that they do not present worthwhile ideas. To take the Potters, we get the tracking of growing up, the death of family and loved ones, betrayals, learning emotions from experiences, education... and all wrapped in a magical bag of spells, werewolves, battles of good and evil and the power of love. Awh. What's not to like?
* yes, yes, I know I have watched the GoF several times. Shoot me.
Sunday, July 22, 2007
Book/CD review: The Adventures of Luther Arkwright by Bryan Talbot
I first picked up Bryan Talbot's acclaimed graphic novel* of The Adventures of Luther Arkwright several years ago, having long been aware of its mythical and significant status amongst comics* writers and artists. It is, to put it mildly, a rather odd text: it certainly benefits from re-reading, largely because its complex weaving narrative can be described as rich, dense or, to detractors, unintelligible. It is visually stunning for sure: just absorbing the images can take days of 'reading'. To take in the communicated storyline(s) as well means paying close attention to what is taking place across the pages. (It just isn't possible to talk of Arkwright using panels in the conventional sense of many graphic novels).
All of that could suggest I am less entranced by this particular work than some of my other favoured texts in this genre/media: my love for Gaiman's work, especially The Sandman series, is well established; Ennis and Dillon's Preacher swept me off my feet and made me care especially deeply for the flawed non-heroic Cassidy; From Hell bought to life a compellingly rich (and well-referenced) version of the the Jack the Ripper killings and their context; Speigelman's Maus showed that a serious story could be told in this media (a view that more recently Satrapi's Persepolis reinforced); and so it goes.
But whilst I would acknowledge that I perhaps 'love' some of those other narratives more, Talbot's Arkwright nevertheless remains one of the most wonderfully thrilling and delightfully infuriating texts in the medium. I cannot help but be drawn to it, not just because it is so admired, but because it is so powerful, so enthralling, and so well controlled by its creator. Yes, it is to some extent a product of its time - hell, it was produced long before the concept of graphic novels as we know them were really thought of. But it's futurism, its parallel world narrative, still stands up. Whilst other texts can be relished or swept through at a speed as the reader sees fit, and undoubtedly each can be regularly returned to for repeat visits in order to add fine layers of visual or prose understanding, Arkwright needs - benefits - from more thorough attention at each visit. It has a structure, for sure, but it isn't simple and the early 'chapters' especially made this reader feel like (on first visit) someone was throwing in mental 'oh DO keep up' signs into the narrative grass. But it pays rich rewards for such efforts as you switch between multiverses with a sweeping whoosh sound ringing in your ears, tracking Luther and his telepath companion, Rose Wylde.
So that's the book format version: how the hell do you manage to convey that in an audio dramatised version?
The answer is, from my perspective, very well indeed. I resisted for some time the lure of buying the Big Finish dramatisation of Talbot's seemingly untranslatable narrative, even though it had caught my eye during a trawl of various internet sites including Amazon. Somehow, it all works: the soundscape is fabulous (befitting the work of Big Finish generally) and though a few characterisations were not quite how I heard them in my head, the major roles are wonderfully conveyed. Yes, yes, I know it's David Tennant in the lead as Arkwright (that wasn't, I admit, a discouragement to purchase), but it's a fine performance from him throughout (even if a thousand fan-fics would relish this solely for the chance to finally hear 'him' say "I love you Rose"). Interestingly, I think Paul Darrow (ah, those years of me and my mum relishing his performances as Avon) was absolutely perfect for the malignant incarnation of Cromwell and actually just the person I was hoping for in the role. But best of all it somehow conveys all of the mystery, all of the convoluted and yet controlled chaos of Talbot's storyline with its parallels, its technology, its politics and intrigue.
I listened to parts one and two yesterday and finished listening to part three today. Its three hours long in total and I can't imagine how they could have done it quicker or comprehend the imagination it must have taken to keep track of its narrative. A hearty well done to all involved.
In other words, both are highly recommended (if not for the faint-hearted).
* You'll have spotted that I have used the terms somewhat interchangeably here. Personally, I just think of such works as this, Sandman, and Preacher etc as fine writing with pictures, though it is a genre or medium that lends itself to conveying ideas in varied if particular manners. It is also an approach whose nuances, speed and agility of story-telling can rarely be captured in other forms - such as traditional prose narrative or film - even though several try to translate such texts to alternative media.
All of that could suggest I am less entranced by this particular work than some of my other favoured texts in this genre/media: my love for Gaiman's work, especially The Sandman series, is well established; Ennis and Dillon's Preacher swept me off my feet and made me care especially deeply for the flawed non-heroic Cassidy; From Hell bought to life a compellingly rich (and well-referenced) version of the the Jack the Ripper killings and their context; Speigelman's Maus showed that a serious story could be told in this media (a view that more recently Satrapi's Persepolis reinforced); and so it goes.
But whilst I would acknowledge that I perhaps 'love' some of those other narratives more, Talbot's Arkwright nevertheless remains one of the most wonderfully thrilling and delightfully infuriating texts in the medium. I cannot help but be drawn to it, not just because it is so admired, but because it is so powerful, so enthralling, and so well controlled by its creator. Yes, it is to some extent a product of its time - hell, it was produced long before the concept of graphic novels as we know them were really thought of. But it's futurism, its parallel world narrative, still stands up. Whilst other texts can be relished or swept through at a speed as the reader sees fit, and undoubtedly each can be regularly returned to for repeat visits in order to add fine layers of visual or prose understanding, Arkwright needs - benefits - from more thorough attention at each visit. It has a structure, for sure, but it isn't simple and the early 'chapters' especially made this reader feel like (on first visit) someone was throwing in mental 'oh DO keep up' signs into the narrative grass. But it pays rich rewards for such efforts as you switch between multiverses with a sweeping whoosh sound ringing in your ears, tracking Luther and his telepath companion, Rose Wylde.
So that's the book format version: how the hell do you manage to convey that in an audio dramatised version?
The answer is, from my perspective, very well indeed. I resisted for some time the lure of buying the Big Finish dramatisation of Talbot's seemingly untranslatable narrative, even though it had caught my eye during a trawl of various internet sites including Amazon. Somehow, it all works: the soundscape is fabulous (befitting the work of Big Finish generally) and though a few characterisations were not quite how I heard them in my head, the major roles are wonderfully conveyed. Yes, yes, I know it's David Tennant in the lead as Arkwright (that wasn't, I admit, a discouragement to purchase), but it's a fine performance from him throughout (even if a thousand fan-fics would relish this solely for the chance to finally hear 'him' say "I love you Rose"). Interestingly, I think Paul Darrow (ah, those years of me and my mum relishing his performances as Avon) was absolutely perfect for the malignant incarnation of Cromwell and actually just the person I was hoping for in the role. But best of all it somehow conveys all of the mystery, all of the convoluted and yet controlled chaos of Talbot's storyline with its parallels, its technology, its politics and intrigue.
I listened to parts one and two yesterday and finished listening to part three today. Its three hours long in total and I can't imagine how they could have done it quicker or comprehend the imagination it must have taken to keep track of its narrative. A hearty well done to all involved.
In other words, both are highly recommended (if not for the faint-hearted).
* You'll have spotted that I have used the terms somewhat interchangeably here. Personally, I just think of such works as this, Sandman, and Preacher etc as fine writing with pictures, though it is a genre or medium that lends itself to conveying ideas in varied if particular manners. It is also an approach whose nuances, speed and agility of story-telling can rarely be captured in other forms - such as traditional prose narrative or film - even though several try to translate such texts to alternative media.
Book review: Maureen Carter - Dead Old
The second in the series by Maureen Carter featuring her wonderful character DS Bev Morriss is entitled Dead Old.
Like its predecessor, Working Girls, "Dead Old" has an excellent structure with its movement towards its final revelations of the true culprit(s) well-handled and thrillingly written.
I really enjoyed reading this book: I'm a real sucker for a bit of crime fiction and the characters can be mentally projected into the mind's eye within the time it takes to read a few of Carter's words to describe them.
Neatly, Carter is playfully aware of the typical characterisations of detective fiction and manages to stay on just the right side of using those stereotypes while working to complicate them. So Morriss swears, drinks too much, grumbles in puns and goes against protocol, but it never feels like the constantly lazy construction of characters often found in such books (or, more especially, their TV counterparts). It's probably because of the limitations Carter places on weaving the narratives so they are not dependant on such conventions; instead they are regularly commented on and fought against. Morriss is also smart and observant, but gets things wrong enough for her to not feel like a fount of all knowledge 'fighting the system' or 'showing it up'.
What I especially liked in this novel was how secondary characters were so convincingly drawn (though that was already a clear strength from "Working Girls"). She manages to do this for both her elderly and younger characters: from the hapless, manipulated Davy to Morriss's gran, Sadie, it is possible to both visualise and trace the impact of events on these characters through Carter's vividly straightforward prose (I mean that as a compliment: there is no convoluted prose style to distract the reader; language is well-used rather than drawing attention to itself).
So, a second enjoyable read. I'll get the next two when I get back from the forthcoming vacation... Should be good!
Like its predecessor, Working Girls, "Dead Old" has an excellent structure with its movement towards its final revelations of the true culprit(s) well-handled and thrillingly written.
I really enjoyed reading this book: I'm a real sucker for a bit of crime fiction and the characters can be mentally projected into the mind's eye within the time it takes to read a few of Carter's words to describe them.
Neatly, Carter is playfully aware of the typical characterisations of detective fiction and manages to stay on just the right side of using those stereotypes while working to complicate them. So Morriss swears, drinks too much, grumbles in puns and goes against protocol, but it never feels like the constantly lazy construction of characters often found in such books (or, more especially, their TV counterparts). It's probably because of the limitations Carter places on weaving the narratives so they are not dependant on such conventions; instead they are regularly commented on and fought against. Morriss is also smart and observant, but gets things wrong enough for her to not feel like a fount of all knowledge 'fighting the system' or 'showing it up'.
What I especially liked in this novel was how secondary characters were so convincingly drawn (though that was already a clear strength from "Working Girls"). She manages to do this for both her elderly and younger characters: from the hapless, manipulated Davy to Morriss's gran, Sadie, it is possible to both visualise and trace the impact of events on these characters through Carter's vividly straightforward prose (I mean that as a compliment: there is no convoluted prose style to distract the reader; language is well-used rather than drawing attention to itself).
So, a second enjoyable read. I'll get the next two when I get back from the forthcoming vacation... Should be good!
Bookshelves, books and the writer's room
Anyone else out there longing for the Guardian to publish a swish coffeetable book of all those lush colour photographs and discussions of writers' rooms? (Preferably, and I cannot stress this enough, with photographs shown complete on a ONE page and not straddling the page fold).
Anyway, it came back to mind not least because I was re-reading David McKie's piece on trying to read the spines of books when looking at photographs of bookshelves such as those included in the glorious Guardian series.
God, I really, REALLY like books. I know we have a long way to go on getting our house sorted as we want and that bookcasing, shelves and other paraphenalia are all well down the list on getting a kitchen/diner sorted next but I long to have a proper study/library a la something like one of those lovely author's room pictures. I have the fireplace with tiles ready to be centre-stage but what I currently have is a squashed nutjob of a room filled to (beyond) capacity with a jumble of differently styled shelf units, boxes and boxes of paperwork and assorted stuff (slides, photo cds, jars of pens, blank cds, card folders, old journals, cassette tapes) and piles and piles of books littering every spare inch of space.
Part of me longs to get someone to take over and just do a decluttering job on me, but mostly I just need better storage and organisation.
An unfortunately that is gonna have to come WAY after the kitchen project which could take the rest of the next 12 months to sort out.
Bah.
Anyway, it came back to mind not least because I was re-reading David McKie's piece on trying to read the spines of books when looking at photographs of bookshelves such as those included in the glorious Guardian series.
God, I really, REALLY like books. I know we have a long way to go on getting our house sorted as we want and that bookcasing, shelves and other paraphenalia are all well down the list on getting a kitchen/diner sorted next but I long to have a proper study/library a la something like one of those lovely author's room pictures. I have the fireplace with tiles ready to be centre-stage but what I currently have is a squashed nutjob of a room filled to (beyond) capacity with a jumble of differently styled shelf units, boxes and boxes of paperwork and assorted stuff (slides, photo cds, jars of pens, blank cds, card folders, old journals, cassette tapes) and piles and piles of books littering every spare inch of space.
Part of me longs to get someone to take over and just do a decluttering job on me, but mostly I just need better storage and organisation.
An unfortunately that is gonna have to come WAY after the kitchen project which could take the rest of the next 12 months to sort out.
Bah.
Norm's very own Normblog profile
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)