Saturday, August 31, 2013
A shout out to a friend, who's trying to make the Phnom Penh music scene more available to the wider world with his Internet radio channel: Radio Free Equinox.
Labels:
links
Friday, August 30, 2013
Thursday, August 29, 2013
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
From Cracked.com
5 Outrageous Lies Companies Are Legally Allowed to Tell You
*************************************
And on a different note, from the American Prospect:
The Socialists Who Made the March on Washington: The story of the radicals behind—and in front of—the demonstration that changed America By Harold Meyerson
5 Outrageous Lies Companies Are Legally Allowed to Tell You
*************************************
And on a different note, from the American Prospect:
The Socialists Who Made the March on Washington: The story of the radicals behind—and in front of—the demonstration that changed America By Harold Meyerson
Labels:
links
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
Sunday, August 25, 2013
U.S. allowed Italian kidnap prosecution to shield higher-ups, ex-CIA officer says
Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/07/27/197823/us-allowed-italian-kidnap-prosecution.html#.UfPSDo2Tg8s#storylink=cpy
Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/07/27/197823/us-allowed-italian-kidnap-prosecution.html#.UfPSDo2Tg8s#storylink=cpy
Saturday, August 24, 2013
Chomsky says ‘Snowden should be honored’ for ‘telling Americans what the government was doing’
********************************
On a different note, from the Guardian's article on Bradley Manning's 35 year prison sentence:
Ben Wizner, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Speech, Privacy & Technology Project, said: "When a soldier who shared information with the press and public is punished far more harshly than others who tortured prisoners and killed civilians, something is seriously wrong with our justice system.
********************************
On a different note, from the Guardian's article on Bradley Manning's 35 year prison sentence:
Ben Wizner, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Speech, Privacy & Technology Project, said: "When a soldier who shared information with the press and public is punished far more harshly than others who tortured prisoners and killed civilians, something is seriously wrong with our justice system.
Friday, August 23, 2013
Thursday, August 22, 2013
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
J. Edgar
I’ve got
mixed feelings about this film. On the whole I’m glad I watched it, and I
appreciate its ambition. But at the same
time, the story lacks forward momentum, and can be hard to sit through.
To be fair,
it’s a difficult subject to condense into a 2 hour movie.
Biopics in general can be difficult to do as movies, because real life doesn’t
always follow the classic Hollywood 3 act
structure. Most people’s lives are a
series of unconnected events rather than a continuous story that is leading up
to a single climax followed by a tidy resolution.
Of course
some lives adapt themselves to movies easier than others. With movies like Spartacus or Braveheart,
it’s pretty clear what the central conflict should be, and where the final climax
should fall.
But the life
of a government bureaucrat doesn’t lend itself to
screenwriting. Hoover
served for 48 years under 8 Presidents, and during that time was involved in
some way with most of the political or social events of the United States . But how do you make one single story that
combines the Palmer raids, the Lindbergh Kidnapping, prohibition, the gangster
era, Hoover’s vendetta against Charlie Chaplin, World War II, McCarthyism, the
Civil Rights Movement, the Mississippi Freedom Summer murders, the Vietnam War,
student radicals, the Black Panthers, Cointelpro, Nixon, and,
of course, Hoover’s famous vendetta against Martin Luther King Jr.? (And that’s only to name a few of the events Hoover was involved
with.)
What
approach would have worked best for a
J. Edgar Hoover biopic is still an open question. I think a J. Edgar Hoover biopic is worth
doing, but I’m still not quite sure what the best way around the problem would
be.
What I can say, however, is that this film doesn’t
work. It tries hard, and it makes some
decisions that I’m sure must have looked good on paper, but in the end it just
doesn’t add up to an engaging film.
The first
problem is that this film focuses too much on J. Edgar Hoover’s personal
life.
It’s an
understandable mistake. The film is
trying to humanize J. Edgar Hoover, and portray him not simply as a monster,
but to understand what made him tick.
This is a
common problem with Hollywood biopics. And yes, it does help to humanize J. Edgar
Hoover by showing he had relationship issues in his private life. But it’s possible to overplay this. We all have relationship issues in our
life. The thing that makes Hoover’s
story unique and worth telling is not the fact that he had mother issues or
that he formed an attachments to another man—no one would have cared about any
of that if Hoover had died an anonymous businessman. The thing that makes Hoover ’s
story worth telling is how it impacted our history, and the relationship issues
are interesting only in so far as they shed light on Hoover ’s historical actions.
Unfortunately,
although the film spends a great deal of time on Hoover ’s
personal life, the film never makes a connection between Hoover ’s personal life, and his actions as
the director of the FBI. (Or at least no
connection that I could see. If I’m
missing something, let me know in the comments section.)
Hoover’s
relationship with Clyde Tolson at times threatens to become
the main focus of the film, and make all the historical events look like simply
little incidents that happened along the way of our main story: Hoover and
Clyde and their unrequited love for each other.
Also, since
the exact nature of J. Edgar Hoover and Clyde Tolson’s relationship
is the subject of speculation, it’s my understanding that most of what the film
portrays between them is just the screenwriter’s imagination, and not
historically accurate at all, including that big, ridiculous, drawn out, overly
melodramatic scene of them fighting in the hotel room.
So that’s
one problem.
The other
problem is the narrative structure of Hoover
dictating his memoirs, which causes the movie to jump around in time.
I’ll admit
there are some clever ideas here. And it
was an interesting Rashomon like touch to show how Hoover ’s
memories of historical events always differed from what really happened.
The
implication was that Hoover had been telling listening to his own propaganda
and lies for so long that he had begun to believe it, but (in what I’ll admit
is a clever move) the audience isn’t let in on this until near the end of the
film.
But this
cleverness comes at a cost, and in my opinion the negatives outweigh the
positives. Jumping around in time, and
revisiting the same events, just kills any forward momentum the film might have
had. It fragments Hoover ’s story even more, and makes it
impossible to get absorbed in the story.
So, those
are my criticisms.
On the
other hand, even though this film never came together as a coherent narrative,
there were parts of it I found fascinating: the Palmer raids, the deportation
of Emma Goldman, the Lindbergh baby kidnapping case (and the resulting media
circus), the development of criminal science, Hoover’s attempts to take
personal credit for all arrests made by the FBI and his vindictiveness against any
other FBI agent who became too famous, Hoover’s blackmailing of American
presidents, and Hoover’s pathological hatred of Martin Luther King, and his
attempts to discredit King—all fascinating.
And for
that reason, despite all the film’s flaws, I’m going to give it a cautious
recommendation anyway. It is worth
seeing, even if it is a little hard to sit through all 2 hours. (Perhaps it’s best watched in segments rather
than all at once.)
Was the Film Too Nice
to Hoover ?
There are a couple of reviews on
Salon [links HERE and HERE], that accuse this film of white
washing J. Edgar Hoover by leaving out all the really nasty stuff he did—for
example, the infamous Cointelpro (W) program which Hoover’s FBI used to
sabotage black radicals and which, in some cases, even went as far as assassination against prominent Black radicals (W) is completely
absent from this movie.
Was
Cointelpro, and the other similar abuses, left out of this movie because Hollywood is too conservative
to reveal the whole truth?
Or was it left out because you just can’t
include everything in a two hour movie?
Or perhaps
a bit of both?
At the very
least, I’ll give this film credit for not shying away from Hoover ’s attempts to destroy Martin Luther
King.
Although
back in his own day Martin Luther King was hated by conservatives, nowadays
Martin Luther King is considered an American icon. So, if you’re trying to tell a story to a
mainstream audience, and you’ve only got two hours, and you want to do it
economically, and you haven’t got time to get into the whole history of Black radicalism
and Cointelpro, then simply showing J. Edgar Hoover’s attempts to destroy Martin
Luther King is a nice short hand way of conveying the message: this guy’s gone
too far. You don’t really need to show a
lot more than that—once he’s on the wrong side of Martin Luther King, he’s lost
the sympathy of the audience. So I’m
inclined to cut the movie some slack on this one.
(…of course
that being said, it is a travesty that most Americans don’t know about the
history of Cointelpro because the schools and the media never talk about it, and,like a lot of other things in history, this just gets swept under
the rug. But that’s a separate issue.)
At any
rate, this movie is an improvement over previous movies like Mississippi Burning, which re-wrote
history to make the FBI the champions of the Civil Rights Movement.
On the same
subject, here’s a note from Wikipedia, here is a small historical fact note:
I can
understand why the movie wanted to have J. Edgar Hoover himself dictate the
letter—from a cinematic standpoint that scene of J. Edgar Hoover yelling out
that letter to his secretary makes for much more interesting viewing than a
scene of Hoover delegating the task.
And yet,
from a historical standpoint, it’s worth remembering the letter was delegated,
because it means that the FBI’s attempts to destroy Martin Luther King wasn’t
just limited to Hoover’s personal idiosyncrasies, but was something the whole
organization was responsible for.
(The movie Mississippi Burning, for example,
attempted to explain away Hoover ’s
hatred of Martin Luther King as something that didn’t really affect the rank
and file members of the FBI, which the movie portrayed as the heroes of the
Civil Rights Movement.)
Notes
* The movie, and the DVD extra featurette, both made a big deal about how J. Edgar Hoover was responsible for
making the use of fingerprints mainstream in criminal investigations.
I’m not
sure about the exact history of this. It
may well be that J. Edgar Hoover
made the process mainstream, but as far back as 1894, the idea of
using fingerprints to solve mysteries was already appearing in Pudd’nhead Wilson by Mark Twain.
* The first Gulf War happened when I was in 7th grade, and
Norman Schwarzkopf was in the news a lot back then. I remember my history teacher at the time
pointing out to us that Norman Schwarzkopf"s father, Norman Schwarzkopf senior, was the very same police officer who had bungled the Lindbergh
kidnapping case. (Just something I
thought about when Schwarzkopf appeared briefly in this movie.)
* One of the interesting things I learned from Sideshow by William Shawcross is that
after the wave of campus violence following the invasion of Cambodia, Nixon’s
team favored a surveillance program of American citizens that was so invasive
that it appalled even J. Edgar Hoover, who refused to even sign the document
until he had all his objections typed out onto it, and quickly rescinded parts
of it afterwards. (See sections quoted in my review of Sideshow by William Shawcross).
It was
interesting to read that Hoover ,
of all people, was being the voice of caution in the room.
I’m not
sure if this was the general pattern throughout the Nixon White House, or not,
but this movie also implies that Nixon’s team was so ruthless it surprised even
Hoover .
* I wish the story of J. Edgar Hoover's relationship with Clyde Tolson would have taken up less time in this movie. Nevertheless, I admit to being educated. I previously had no idea who Clyde Tolson is. Now that I know, I'm better able to understand who that mysterious figure was with J. Edgar Hoover in other movies, such as Oliver Stone's Nixon.
Link of the Day
The Highest Degree Odious - PATRIOT, Cointelpro & WatergateJ. Edgar: Movie Review
Links to stuff mentioned:
Buy this movie on Amazon: https://amzn.to/3ZtHHHg
(This is an associate's link. If you buy anything through that link, I get a commission.)
Tuesday, August 20, 2013
Monday, August 19, 2013
Sunday, August 18, 2013
The Truth About Climate Change
(I came across this article because it was included in some of the teaching materials at my school. It's 4 years old now, but still quite a sobering read.)
(I came across this article because it was included in some of the teaching materials at my school. It's 4 years old now, but still quite a sobering read.)
Labels:
links
Saturday, August 17, 2013
Friday, August 16, 2013
Flashman and the Mountain of Light by George MacDonald Fraser
Another
Flashman book. See also: Flashman, Royal Flash, Flash for Freedom, Flashman at the Charge, Flashman and the Great Game, Flashman's Lady , Flashman and the Redskins, Flashman and the Dragon, Flashman and the Angel of the Lord, Flashman and the Tiger, Flashman on the March, and the original source material Tom Brown's Schooldays by Thomas Hughes.
This book
finds Flashman in the middle of the first Sikh War (1845-1846).
Since I
knew absolutely nothing about the first Sikh War, I got quite an education from
this book. And being a history geek, I
enjoyed every minute of it. (If you like
history, these Flashman books are a real treat.)
There’s a
lot of interesting stuff in this book.
George MacDonald Fraser pulls off an exotic tale at the frontiers of British India that has plenty of espionage, intrigue and
bizarre twists, most of which actually turn out surprisingly to be historical.
George
MacDonald Fraser also highlights some of the more colorful European and
American adventurers in India
during the period, such as Alexander Gardner (W) and Josiah Harlan
(W), the latter of whom was the inspiration for Rudyard Kipling’s The Man Who Would Be King.
The book
also includes some very interesting descriptions of the great battles of the
Sikh War.
Something
that both George MacDonald Fraser and our narrator Flashman are at pains to
emphasize is that, contrary to common misconception, the Sikh War, and many of
the other British Imperial wars, were not fought against disorganized unarmed
savages, but instead fought against a well-armed army trained on the European
model. To quote from Flashman: “That was the thing about the Khalsa [Sikh
Army]: it was Aldershot
in turbans. It was an army.
That’s worth bearing in mind when
you hear some smart alec holding forth about our imperial wars being one-sided
massacres of poor club-waving heathen mown down by Gatlings. Oh, it happened, at Ulundi and Washita and Omdurman—but ….our detractors
never mentioned armies like the Khalsa, every bit as well-armed and equipped as
we were. So how did we hold India? You’ll see presently.” (p. 58)
The story
culminates, then, with some great battles involving heavy artillery that to me
seemed more like a Napoleonic battle than an Indian War. One of the battles is even described as the “Indian
Waterloo.”
If you’re
curious about this period of history, and you like a good exotic adventure
story, this book is a lot of fun to read.
Historical Accuracy
I know nothing about the Sikh
Wars, so don’t put too much stock into my opinions.
However
that being said, one criticism I have heard about the Flashman series in general is that George MacDonald Fraser relies
too much on sensationalist Victorian era reports instead of more sober and
balanced histories.
I suspect
that might be the case here. As always,
George MacDonald Fraser has everything in the book meticulously backed up by
historical endnotes, but some of the details in this book about the debauchery,
orgies, and intrigue in the court of Lahore seem to read like they may have
been exaggerated by credulous Victorians. (Although again, I really don’t know
anything, so I’m not in a position to make a judgment. This is just my suspicion.)
As with
some of the other books in the Flashman
series, this book is probably an example of orientalism (W)—the kind
of book that emphasizes the exoticness and strangeness of Eastern cultures to
create a more interesting story for Western audiences.
Of course
whether this is a negative point or not depends entirely on your
perspective. I have a good friend who is
a fellow Flashman fan, and when I mentioned this point to him he replied, “I’d
actually say that’s the best thing about the Flashman books. Some people
may criticize George MacDonald Fraser for using sensationalist Victorian
sources, but I’d praise him for it. He’s
correct to go back to the most exciting and interesting sources and use those
to make his story. That’s the kind of
history that’s the most interesting to read.”
And he may
be right. I just bring up the issue so
that a potential reader knows beforehand what they’re getting into. But if exotic oriental adventures sound more
your thing than a sober boring history, then this is the book for you.
The Politics
I’ve mentioned this before in
previous reviews, but it seems to me that the politics of these Flashman books have changed along the
way.
The first 5
books in the series seemed to be a criticism of the British
Empire and the imperial mindset.
Starting
with book 6, Flashman’s Lady, the
books actually became a defense of British (and sometimes American)
imperialism.
One of two things happened: either
1) George MacDonald Fraser got more conservative as he grew older, or 2) he had
actually been conservative all along, and I just thought the early books were
anti-imperial because I was mistakenly reading my own views into the
books. (At some point I should probably
re-read the early Flashman books and
see how they fare under a second reading.)
The early Flashman books focused on the British
disaster in Afghanistan, the
pointless bloodbath that was the Crimean War, and showed the results of British
misrule in India
during the Indian Mutiny.
In the
later Flashman books, George
MacDonald Fraser defends the British imperial legacy in Borneo, the second Opium
War, and in Ethiopia, (and
at least some aspects of the United
States policy against the American-Indians).
In this book, George MacDonald Fraser
defends the British policy during the Sikh Wars. He portrays the British government as simply
wanting peace and stability in the Punjab, and
forced into a war by the aggression of the Sikhs.
Sir Henry
Hardinge, who had hoped for a more peaceful resolution to the Sutlej
crisis, is represented as short-sighted and arrogant, and those favoring a more
aggressive British policy (George Broadfoot and Sir Hugh Gough) come off as
much more competent and far sighted.
George
MacDonald Fraser is aware that some other historians have placed the blame for
the origin of the Sikh War on the British government (he cites Cunningham’s
1849 work History of the Sikhs), but
he attempts to write a rebuttal of this in one of his appendixes:
It is easy to say that with a powerful,
arrogant Khalsa bent on invasion, war was inevitable; no one in the Punjab could restrain them (or wanted to), so what could
the British do but prepare to meet the storm? Something, according to
Cunningham, a most respected historian, who believed that, while the Khalsa
took the initiative, the British were “mainly to blame” for the war. His
conclusions have been eagerly seized in some quarters, but his argument boils
down to the suggestion that Britain,
“an intelligent power” faced with “a half barbarous military dominion”, should
have acted with more wisdom and foresight.
It is rather lofty, even for 1849, and perhaps “equally” or “partially”
would be fairer than “mainly.” (Appendix 1: The Sutlej
Crisis, p. 365)
Which view
is accurate? Someone who actually knows
their facts will have to answer this question.
I have no idea. For all I know,
George MacDonald Fraser may well be right.
And yet,
there are parts of this book which lead me to suspect that our narrator
Flashman (and our author George MacDonald Fraser) have started to view history
through a more belligerent and pro-imperial stance that would have been out of
place in the earlier books.
For
example, in one of the earlier Flashman
books, Flashman at the Charge, these
are Flashman’s thoughts as he surveys the wreckage after the battlefield at Crimea. (The
Crimean War occurred after the Sikh War, but it comes from an earlier Flashman
book because they are not always written in chronological order.) Here Flashman is talking about what he'd like to do to the War-mongers back in England who had started the whole slaughter.
The camp ground was littered with spent shot and rubbish and broken gear among the pools of congealed blood – my stars, wouldn’t I just like to take one of our Ministers, or street-corner orators, or blood-lusting, breakfast-scoffing papas, over such a place as the Alma Hills – not to let him see, because he’d just tut-tut and look anguished and have a good pray and not care a damn – but to shoot him in the belly with a soft-nosed bullet and let him die screaming where he belonged. That’s all they deserve.
Contrast
that, if you will, with Flashman’s thoughts after witnessing the slaughter of the
Sikhs in this book:
They say ten thousand Khalsa died in the Sutlej. Well, I don’t mind and I still don’t. They started it, and hell mend them, as old
Colin Campbell used to say. And if you tell me that every man’s death
diminishes me, I’ll retort that it diminishes him a hell of a sight more, and
if he’s a Khalsa Sikh, servers him right.
Knowing me, you won’t marvel at my
callousness, but you may wonder why Paddy Gough, as kindly an old stick as ever
patted a toddler’s head, hammered ‘em so mercilessly when they were beat and
running. Well, he had good reasons, one
being that you don’t let up on a courageous adversary until he hollers “Uncle!”,
which the Sikhs ain’t inclined to do—and I wouldn’t trust ‘em if they did. Nor
do you feel much charity towards an enemy who never takes prisoners, and
absolutely enjoys chopping up wounded, as happened at Sobraon and Ferozeshah
both. Even if Gough had wanted to stop the slaughter, I doubt if anyone would
have heeded him.
But the best reason for murdering
the Khalsa was that if enough of the brutes had escaped, the whole beastly
business would have been to do again, with consequent loss of British and Sepoy
lives. That’s something the moralists overlook (or more likely don’t give a dam
about) when they cry: “Pity the beaten foe!” What they’re saying, in effect, is
“Kill our fellows tomorrow rather then the enemy today.” But they don’t care to
have it put to them like that; they want their wars won clean and comfortable,
with a clear conscience. (Their consciences being much more precious than their
own soldiers’ lives, you understand.)
Well, that’s fine, if you’re sitting in the Liberal Club with a bellyful
of port on top of your dinner, but if you rang the bell and it was answered not
by a steward with a napkin but an Akali with a tulwar, you might change your
mind. Distance always lends
enlightenment to the view I’ve noticed. (p. 344-345—tulwar means Sikh sword in Hindi)
As Flashman is an anti-hero, I
suppose I should be cautious about assuming his views are synonymous with
George MacDonald Fraser (although Fraser will usually make a note in the
endnotes when he wants to disassociate himself from Flashman’s analysis, something
he doesn’t do here.) Either way, this is
a far cry from Flashman’s views in Flashman
at the Charge.
And so, as
with several of the previous Flashman
books, I’m not sure I entirely approve of the pro-imperial politics of this
book, but that didn’t stop me from enjoying the story.
Put this
down as another guilty pleasure.
[Lest I be unfair, there’s at
least one passage that harkens back to the old Flashman, the critic of
Victorian morality. Flashman is put in a
position where it may be to Britain’s
advantage if he can seduce a foreign princess and he notes with pleasure how
uncomfortable the whole thing makes his superiors. As Flashman relates: He [George Broadfoot] had the
conscience of his time, you see, Bible-reared and shunning sin, and the thought
that my success in Lahore
might depend on fornication set him a fine ethical problem. He couldn’t solve it—I doubt if Dr. Arnold
and Cardinal Newman could, either. (“I say, your eminence, what price Flashy’s
salvation if he breaks the seventh commandment for his country’s sake?” “That
depends, doctor, on whether the randy young pig enjoyed it.”) Of course, if it
had been slaughter, not adultery, that was necessary, none of my pious
generation would even have blinked—soldier’s duty, you see. (p. 49-50).]
Notes
* As you can see from some of the above quotes, Flashman our
narrator uses a lot of Indian words as he tells his story.
I suspect
this is to give the story more authenticity.
I’m told that the British community stationed in India picked up
a lot of the local words, which they would intermix with English in their
conversations with each other to develop a unique sort of expatriate
dialect. (The expatriate community in Japan does the
same thing, by the way, so I can easily imagine it). And George MacDonald Fraser spent some time
in India,
where he apparently acquired some of this lingo himself.
However, I’m
not sure I entirely sure I appreciated the linguistic education. I’d be lying if I said I didn’t find all those
trips back to the glossary a tad annoying.
* I have now finished all 12 Flashman books (see list above).
I read the books slightly out of order because I’m in Asia
and it was difficult to track the books down exactly in order. So I’m actually
finishing on book 9 out of 12, but this is nevertheless the end of the Flashman series for me. Although I’ve noted my quibbles with this or
that along the way, on the whole it’s been an enjoyable reading experience.
Although
this is the end of the official Flashman
series, Flashman and his family do reportedly make cameo appearances in some
other George MacDonald Fraser books: Mr.
American (A) and Black
Ajax (A). And Flashman also
reportedly pops up in yet other books by other writers (W).
I’m not sure
yet if I’ll get to these other books or not, but as always if I read them, I’ll
add them to my book review list.
Thursday, August 15, 2013
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
From the Guardian:
Study says 'ignorant' troops alienated local people and the Taliban are likely to try to retake the Afghanistan province
And on a completely different note, from Salon.com
CIA finally admits to spying on Chomsky: The agency had for years denied keeping a file on MIT professor; FOIAed file reveals the truth
Tom Tomorrow's take:
It has taken forty years to confirm CIA spying on Noam Chomsky. Be smart to learn a lesson or two from that.
And on a completely different note, from Salon.com
CIA finally admits to spying on Chomsky: The agency had for years denied keeping a file on MIT professor; FOIAed file reveals the truth
Tom Tomorrow's take:
It has taken forty years to confirm CIA spying on Noam Chomsky. Be smart to learn a lesson or two from that.
Monday, August 12, 2013
The Wind in the Willows by Kenneth Grahame
My History With This Book
As a child, I was raised on Disney cartoons and The Disney Channel, so my primary impression of this story is through the Disney movie The Adventures of Ichabod and Mr. Toad.
I know that this is one of Disney's less-remembered animated movies, but, for my money, the Disney version of The Battle for Toad Hall is some of the best animated slapstick that classic Disney ever produced.
But as great as these scenes are, they of course give a false-impression of the book. If you go into the book expecting a face-paced story with lots of action... oh boy, are you going to be in for an adjustment!
(Incidentally, since I'm hanging out with a lot of British friends these days, I might add I've discovered that there was a TV show based on The Wind and the Willows that was on British TV in the 1980s, and for British people around my age it was this TV show that is their primary impression of The Wind and the Willows, not the Disney movie.)
My mother at one point bought me a copy of The Wind in the Willows book, but I never got more than a few pages into it.
Why I Read This Book Now
Aside from the fact that this is
one of those classic books that’s been on my to-read list for decades now,
there were a couple things that pushed this book to my attention recently.
A couple
brief excerpts from this book are featured on the audio book anthology 1000 Years of Laughter which I’ve been listening to, and I decided I liked
the humor.
And then,
somehow in my Internet wanderings, I came across this interview with Guillermo del Tor, where he was talking about how he pulled out of the Disney movie
project: "It was a beautiful book, and then I went to meet with the executives and they said, 'Could you give Toad a skateboard and make him say, 'radical dude' things,' and that's when I said, 'It's been a pleasure...'"
. I decided I wanted to read the book and find
out why he thought it was so beautiful.
The final
reason is that I was going on a beach trip with a few friends, and I needed a
short, light read that I could kick back at the beach with, and finish off in a
couple days, and this seemed to fit the bill perfectly.
Children’s Book or
Adult’s Book
I’d be curious to hear about other
people’s experience of this book. Did
you read it as a child, or as an adult, and what age did you think this book
was most appropriate for? Do me a favor
and leave a comment if you’ve already read this book.
In my case,
my mother actually gave me a copy of this book when I was a child (around 4th
grade I think) and for years it just sat on my bookshelf mocking me. I tried several times to read it, but could
never get past the first few pages. It was
just so boring and slow moving.
Now that I’m
an adult, I have a lot more patience, and I can easily put up with the long
descriptions of natural settings or domestic life or daily animal habits. But as a child I lacked this patience.
The style
of the book is episodic with many different chapters containing separate
stories. (The exception being the
stories involving Toad, most of which happen near the end.) The stories in the
beginning chapters are very simple: Mole meets Rat and has his first trip down
the river, Mole and Rat get lost in the woods for a while until they find
Badger’s house, Mole gets homesick and re-visits his old house, et cetera.
There’s
perhaps a temptation to imagine that simple stories are ideal for children, but
I think the contrary is true. Children,
perhaps especially young boys, need a lot of fast paced action to hold their
attention. If you want to see the ideal
book for a ten-year old boy, check out Princess of Mars by Edgar Rice Burroughs. It’s all non-stop
action, and very little time wasted on describing anything.
The Wind in the Willows, however, is the
antithesis of Burroughs.
It’s very little action, and a lot of description.
The publisher’s
introduction to my paperback (Jane Yolen, 1988, Tor Books) tackles this
awkwardness head on, and admits that parts of the book are more suited for
middle-age than childhood. The book was
apparently written as part of a middle-aged crisis for Kenneth Grahame when he
was feeling very nostalgic about his childhood.
It was combined with a series of stories about Mr. Toad that Kenneth
Grahame had been telling his son, and the Mr. Toad stories are much more child
friendly.
But,
although the adventures of Mr. Toad are what everyone remembers from this book,
the bulk of the book is actually filled with nostalgic descriptions of the
English countryside and domestic life in rural England.
I can
appreciate the beauty of all of this now, but I would never give this book to a
child.
A couple of
the chapters are even overtly about middle-aged crises. In one chapter, Rat, who has lived all his
life in peaceful domestic bliss on the same river, encounters another rodent
who has sailed over the world and has stories from every port town. Rat has a moment of crisis in which he
wonders if he’s missing out on life by not travelling and having adventures,
and he almost packs up his things and sets out to see the world before he is
eventually talked out of it by Mole, who brings him back down to earth by
talking about English pastoral life. “Casually, then, and with seeming
indifference, the Mole turned his talk to the harvest that was being gathered
in, the towering wagons, and their straining teams, the growing ricks, and the
large moon rising over bare acres dotted with sheaves. He talked of the
reddening apples around, of the browning nuts, of jams and preserves and the
distilling of cordials; till by easy stages such as these he reached midwinter,
its hearty joys and its snug home life, and then he became simply lyrical.”
(p. 145-146)
There’s
another chapter when Rat and Mole encounter the nature god Pan. It’s a beautifully written passage (and often
very beautifully illustrated [LINK HERE]), but the primary emotion
is a sense of painful nostalgia for something lost. Again, it’s not something I would recommend
to a child.
On the
other hand, the pastoral scenes in this book are intercut with the adventures
of Mr. Toad, and the Mr. Toad parts are obviously written for a child. They are much faster paced and adventurous,
and they also follow a child’s sense of logic.
(After Mr. Toad escapes from jail, he is a fugitive from the law and
pursued by the police, but all of this is abruptly dropped from the story as
soon as he gets back home. In the logic
of this book, it appears once you get back to your home base you win and the
police just go home. Also, the stouts
and the weasels are driven out of Toad Hall by a surprise attack, but for some
reason there is never any question of the stouts and weasels re-grouping for
any sort of counter-attack, despite the fact that they have superior
numbers. Once they are driven out of
Toad Hall the first time, the game appears to be over.)
To quote
from the publisher’s afterward:
“The Wind
in the Willows is not one book but
three. There is the contemplative,
pastoral, sentimental, and nostalgic story of those best of old-fashioned
friends Rat and Badger and Mole. There
is the rollicking adventure of the irrepressible and trouble-minded toad. and there is the mystical, magical, even
visionary and dreamlike, allegory of Pan with his Pipes at the Gates of
Dawn. Some readers prefer the story of
friendship, some prefer the fast-paced adventure; some prefer the dream.”
(Jane Yolen, 1988).
So,
although parts of The Wind and the
Willows are written for children, and parts for adults, I think on the
whole the book is best read by adults.
Adults can enjoy the children’s sections of the book a lot better than
children can handle the adult parts.
But that’s
just my opinion. Let me know what you
thought of this book.
While out
on the beach, I did a quick survey of my group of friends. One person said he actually had read this
book as a child. Even though the book
had bored him, he said he was just such a voracious reader as a child that he
read anything and everything he could get his hands on, and he plowed on
through the book anyway despite the boredom.
I suspect
this is the only kind of child that can read this book. I was very much the opposite kind of child
though. I liked reading, but it was a
slow and laborious process for me, and if the story didn’t move quickly enough,
I was very easily distracted by other books which did move quicker. And that’s
what happened to me with The Wind in the
Willows.
My other
friends had never even read this book, but had a lot of nostalgia for the
characters and the story nonetheless because they remembered it from the
various TV shows. (In my case, I have a
lot of nostalgia for the Disney version (W), but from my British
friends I learned there was also a TV show based on The Wind in the Willows that ran for several years in Britain (W).)
The fact
that the characters from this story have worked their way into our collective
childhood nostalgia, regardless of whether we read the book or not, is perhaps
an indication that this book does have some level of strong appeal to children
after all.
The Review
All that being said, let me put
aside the question of who this is for, and simply focus on how enjoyable it was
for me to read now at my present stage in life.
And the
answer is: quite enjoyable. This is a
quick read which I easily finished off in a couple of days, and it’s a
thoroughly charming. It has a lot of
cute scenes describing animal society, very detailed descriptions of life in
the Edwardian English countryside, and it can be quite funny.
Having been forewarned by the
publisher’s introduction that a lot of the book was simply nostalgia about the
English countryside, I allowed myself to get in the mood and allowed the author
to paint his picture of the simple joys of the river and the forest, and the
joys of a cozy home.
The
sections describing home life in Edwardian England were interesting as
well. In this day and age of electric
heating, it’s easy to forget how important the fireside was to Edwardians in
the winter time, and there are a lot of passages describing how comfortable the
fire place was, and describing animals talking to each other while warming
themselves by the fireside, or drinking warm ale by the fire.
I also
enjoyed the humor of the book. And to
illustrate this, I’ll indulge myself by
quoting my favorite passage.
My Favorite Passage
The Rat was sitting on the river bank, singing a little song. He had just composed it himself, so he was
very taken up with it, and would not pay proper attention to Mole or anything
else. Since early morning he had been
swimming in the river in company with his friends the ducks. And when the ducks stood on their heads
suddenly, as ducks will, he would dive down and tickle their necks just under
where their chins would be if ducks had chins, till they were forced to come to
the surface again in a hurry, spluttering and angry and shaking their feathers
at him, for it was impossible to say quite all you feel when your head is under water. At last they implored him to
go away and attend to his own affairs and leave them to minds theirs. So the
Rat went away, and sat on the river bank in the sun, and made up a song about
them, which he called
“DUCKS’ DITTY”
All along the
backwater,
Through the rushes
tall,
Ducks are a-dabbling,
Up tails all!
Ducks’ tails, drakes’
tails,
Yellow feet a-quiver,
Yellow bills all out
of sight
Busy in the river!
Slushy green
undergrowth
Where the roach swim—
Here we keep our
larder,
Cool and full and dim.
Every one for what he
likes!
We like to be
Heads down, tails up
Dabbling free!
High in the blue above
Swifts whirl and call—
We are down a-dabbling
Up tails all!
“I don’t know that I think so very much of that little song, Rat,” observed
the Mole cautiously. He was no poet
himself and didn’t care who knew it; and he had a candid nature.
“Nor don’t the ducks, neither,”
replied the Rat cheerfully. “They say, ‘Why can’t fellows be allowed to do what they like when they like and as they like, instead of other fellows sitting on banks and watching them
all the time and making remarks and poetry and things about them? What nonsense it all is!’ That’s what the ducks say.”
“So it is, so it is,” said the Mole,
with great heartiness.
“No, it isn’t!” cried the Rat
indignantly.
“Well then, it isn’t, it isn’t,”
replied the Mole soothingly…..
The Wind in the Willows by Kenneth Grahame: Book Review
Sunday, August 11, 2013
From Reader to Reading Teacher by Jo Ann Aebersold and Mary Lee Field
Subtitle: Issues and
Strategies for Second Language Classrooms
Why I Read This Book
When I first started teaching in
the English for Academic Purposes (EAP) program at my school, a copy of this
book was given to all the EAP teachers by the school director. “Now that you’re teaching EAP, this book will
tell you about the leap I expect you to make,” she told us.
I’m
somewhat embarrassed to admit that this book lingered unread on my bookshelf
for quite some time after that, but I did eventually get around to reading it,
and so here is my review.
The Review
If it’s not already obvious from
the title and the cover, the first point to be made about this book is that it’s
not designed to be pleasure reading. (One
of my co-workers complained that this book kept putting him to sleep, but the
technical reading for any profession can usually be a bit dry, and TESOL is no exception.) The
criteria for evaluating a book like this is:
1) Did it
contain useful ideas?
and 2) Were
those ideas presented in a straight forward, easy to understand manner?
And the
answers are: yes, and yes. So I judge
the book a success. Pleasure reading it
is not, but I picked up a number of good ideas from this book for planning
reading lessons, and I’m glad I read it.
The book is
designed to be used as a text book in a teacher training classroom, and there
are a number of exercises and group discussion questions scattered throughout. In the interest of full disclosure, I should
admit that I just read the book straight through, and didn’t complete, most of
the exercises and activities. (If you
want to say that I didn’t fully complete this book the way the author’s
intended, I won’t argue.)
As I read,
a few things caught my attention, which I’ll detail more below:
1997 versus 2013
This book was published back in
1997, so admittedly it’s not the most recent book on the subject.
Given how
quickly theories change in the field of Second Language Acquisition, I suspect
some of the book is already out of date, although I’m not knowledgeable enough
in the literature to pinpoint exactly what.
One of the
things that is easily noticeable, however, is how much technology has changed.
For
example: “All of the examples given here
of extensive and intensive reading courses assume a very high level of L2/FL
proficiency. It is easier to use an extensive approach when the students have
easy access to L2/FL texts in the culture at large. It is, however, possible to design an
extensive reading course for students at intermediate or high intermediate
levels of L2/FL proficiency; it requires a specialized library in the students’
classroom, or the school, or the community, and some adjustments in the
follow-up tasks that students do. Students need to have access to texts that
are within their language proficiency range…” (p. 46)
This was
obviously written in the pre-Internet days.
(Or at least, when the Internet was still in its infancy). At my school, the students do almost all of
their reading off of the Internet. The
teacher still needs to be involved in helping to guide the students to readings
that are appropriate for their level, but there is certainly no need to create
a specialized library in the classroom.
Another way
in which technology has changed things is on-line learning tools like Moodle (W). Instead of keeping reading journals in an
old-fashioned notebook (as the authors of this book recommend), my EAP students
now do all their reading journals on the Moodle. This is very useful because it allows me to
check it at any time, and it also allows their classmates to see and comment on
each other’s reading journals.
Pre-Reading
Strategies
Just out of curiosity, how many of
you consciously do pre-reading strategies before you read something in your
native language?
In my case,
I’d say almost never. I usually just
plunge right into an article or book and read each sentence as it comes.
The authors
of this book, however, assert that superior readers always employ pre-reading
strategies even in their native language, such as skimming over the headings of
each chapter and making predictions before they begin reading.
Do people
actually do this in real life, or is this just pure TESOL theory? Am I the odd one out for not doing this? Let me know in the comments section what you
think.
Perhaps
because of my personal bias, I am somewhat resistant to the idea of teaching
students pre-reading strategies like skimming and scanning. To me, it spoils the idea of reading. Obviously this is more of an issue with
novels, when you don’t want to spoil the ending. But even for newspaper or magazine articles,
editorials or essays, there is a certain pleasure in just following the ideas
at the pace the author chooses to develop them.
Skimming the article beforehand seems to rob the reader of this
pleasure.
I can
understand teaching skimming and scanning in test situations when the student
is under time pressure, but I’m more resistant to teaching it as a general
lifelong reading skill, which is what the authors advocate in this book.
The way I
reconciled myself somewhat to the idea was by remembering my own experience reading
in a foreign language—Japanese.
Whenever I was reading something in Japanese, I was always very nervous
because my comprehension was tenuous. Even
if I was understanding everything so far, I never knew what lay ahead in the
next sentence. And often all it took was
one confusing sentence, or one unknown word, to completely de-rail me and cause
me to lose the entire meaning of everything that followed.
Remembering
this experience, I began to see how useful it might be in a foreign language to
skim and scan over an unfamiliar text before reading it. That way even if one sentence completely
throws you off, you still have a general idea of where the article is supposed
to be heading, and you can get back on track a lot easier.
So,
especially for more difficult texts, I can see where it might be useful for the
students to skim it first before they do a detailed reading.
…Assuming,
that is, that the students need to be doing difficult readings.
In recent
years, many people have been arguing that the best way to get students to learn
English is to get them into the habit of reading for pleasure, and this means
steering students away from more difficult texts and towards reading that they
can do easily without a lot of pre-reading skimming and predictions
strategy.
One of the
senior teachers at my school is a big advocate of this approach. “We really ruin the fun of reading with all
these pre-reading strategies and comprehension questions,” he told me. “Instead we should just try to get students
to enjoy reading simple texts that they can easily understand.”
[I believe
this movement (and a lot of the literature associated with it) has become more popular
in the last 10 years, after the publication of this book. Although to be fair to the authors, in their
section on extensive reading, they do strongly advocate keeping the reading
materials within the students’ range to avoid frustration.]
At any
rate, sometimes the curriculum dictates the students have to work through
advanced texts whether the teacher likes it or not. In my EAP classes, the students have to read
advanced texts which is often beyond their level, and the pre-reading
strategies out-lined in this book have been useful to me in helping to set up
those readings.
Other Notes
* From page 135: “Comprehending
a text is different from recalling it.
Memory in an L2 can be significantly shorter than in the L1.”
This is a
good reminder to me that just because students don’t remember the text
perfectly, it doesn’t necessarily mean they couldn’t understand it.
* In talking about the criteria for selecting texts, the
authors write: “When the teacher has some
autonomy in the selection of literary texts for the L2/FL classroom, two
criteria that will shape the selection are (1) the culture content of the works
and (2) the relevance of the works to the lives of the students in the class.
Cultural content that is too implicit, as in the novels A Catcher in the Rye or Huckleberry Finn, may so
complicate the students’ access to comprehension that the reading becomes a
chore rather than a pleasure.”
Interestingly, I think they’re
right on the main idea here, but possibly wrong on the example.
A Catcher in the Rye was translated into
Japanese by Haruki Murakami in 2003 and became a big
hit in Japan, proving that the book may have more universal cross-cultural
appeal than we give it credit for (of course this was also after the
publication date of this book).
I’m
nitpicking, I know, but it’s worth pointing out that sometimes you just never
know what might or might not appeal across cultural lines.
Link of the Day
How Do We Defend Ourselves from the Corporate and Imperial Forces that Threaten Our Existence
And also--More Japanese music on youtube!
I think I like this Japanese cover of Waist Deep in the Big Muddy better than the original. It seems to have more energy. (For those who don't understand Japanese, it's a pretty direct translation of the original lyrics.)
From Reader to Reading Teacher by Jo Ann Aebersold and Mary Lee Field: Book ReviewLink of the Day
How Do We Defend Ourselves from the Corporate and Imperial Forces that Threaten Our Existence
And also--More Japanese music on youtube!
I think I like this Japanese cover of Waist Deep in the Big Muddy better than the original. It seems to have more energy. (For those who don't understand Japanese, it's a pretty direct translation of the original lyrics.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)