Jane Eyre n’ Me

Mr. Rochester performed music so underground his band didn't even exist yet

The new Jane Eyre was good, though slightly anti-climactic for the swoony 11^th grader in me. By way of explanation: Jane Eyre was one of those books that I devoured in high school. A plain and chubby but plucky girl myself, I immediately imagined myself as Jane  to a thrillingly Byronic imagined Mr. Rochester (at this time——circa 2000—most often manifested by a bearded Johnny Depp). The connection with the novel, re-read about five times since then, was so strong that no film adaptation could ever quite match up with my personal expectation. Previous movies were enjoyable, but left no significant impression, save for the version in which Sookie Stackhouse plays cheeky Young Jane.

Which brings me to the new film by Cary Fukunaga: Well-acted (check-nice supporting work by Jamie Bell, Judi Dench, and Sally Hawkins, to boot!), well-scripted (check plus-the script retells the story out of sequential order, breaking up the tedium of the earlier Jane adaptations) beautifully shot (check—Thornfield Hall is lovingly realized).  I can’t fault the acting of the major players, though Michael Fassbender is decidedly waaaay too conventionally gorgeous to be Mr. Rochester.  I’ve always considered Rochester to have a bit of a caveman about him which contributes to his allure in a bizarre way that was very appealing to seventeen-year old Me. Here,  he is more like a gentle, scruffily bearded flannel-bedecked frontman for an Allston band that would be called Dear Mother Owls  or something similar. Mia Wasikowska is lovely as Jane, though I’d love to see her retain a bit more of the ballsy confidence that animates Jane as a child. Upon reflection, my real disappointment with Jane Eyre is personal, nostalgic, and impossible to rectify: that after imagining myself so long as the character, it has become impossible to be pleased with a heroine other than myself.

James Joyce Describes Sardines in “Ulysses” — and Condoms!

I am a big fan of sardines (as you can see for yourself in this entry I penned for a previous blog), so I was happy to find this description of a tin of them in “Ulysses.”  It’s from the “Oxen of the Sun” chapter where Joyce moves through the history of English literature in his language and style.  So he goes through Beowulf, the King James Bible, and so on.  He’s describing some pretty mundane things, though, hence the humor.

I think the language here is supposed to be like Malory (though I’m not sure, still not using notes!).

And there was a vat of silver that was moved by craft to open in the which lay strange fishes withouten heads though misbelieving men nie that this be possible thing without they see it natheless they are so. And these fishes lie in an oily water brought there from Portugal land because of the fatness that therein is like to the juices of the olive press.

UPDATE–

I have to add this other quote, which I think is a description of a condom in the style of Bunyan.

… for that foul plague Allpox and the monsters they cared not for them for Preservative had given them a stout shield of oxengut and, third, that they might take no hurt neither from Offspring that was that wicked devil by virtue of this same shield which was named Killchild.

I’m Reading “Ulysses,” What Are You Doing?

Yes I am.  This is my second attempt, but I’ve gotten much further in this time.  I’m currently nearly halfway through, in the middle of the part where “the citizen” gets in a fight with Bloom in a bar.  (On my first try, several years ago, I don’t think I got past the first bit with Stephen Dedalus and Buck Mulligan in the tower.)

My new strategy, oddly, is NOT reading any notes.  It’s actually easier and much more pleasant to just power through.  I certainly don’t always know exactly what’s happening, but I’ve never yet completely lost the narrative thread; I actually think the impenetrability of the book is a bit oversold.  I generally do know what’s happening and to whom.  One helpful hint: whenever I don’t know what someone is talking about, I assume that he is talking about Parnell.

O hai I am Parnell.

But it’s very enjoyable.  Also makes me want to reread Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man for more Stephen background.  I got extremely confused for a while before I realized that both Stephen’s father and his uncle are fairly major characters in the book (on every reference I thought they were the same person).

I’m also basically ignoring all the parallels to the Odyssey, or at least not worrying about them too much.  I recognize them if they’re obvious. (Oh hey, the citizen has one eye.)

What I do find interesting is paying attention to the use of color, since I know that Joyce liked the Indian tradition of assigning a particular color, with corresponding meaning and emotional tone, to each subsection of his writing.

In any case, it’s still more a pleasure than a chore; hopefully it will remain so!

Arkngthand — There is a Game of Thrones Concept Album?!

Um… this is awesome.  In trying to find the Game of Thrones HBO show available to watch online, we have turned up what appears to be a Dutch metal band with an unpronounceable name — Arkngthand — that has released an entire concept album devoted to the Song of Ice and Fire series.  It’s available on iTunes.

Has anyone else ever heard of this?  It’s hilarious.  In this video they seem to just be saying “dire wolves” over and over again.  I wish it was an actual music video; not just an audio clip, but the pic is pretty great itself.  Second from the left is my fave, but the guy on the far left looks like a reject from House Frey, am I right?  Who’s coming with me?  Yeah, I made a joke about House Frey.

Today’s Final Post

Jane Eyre movie review post coming soon…until then:

Is there any literary character that you feel possessive over? Any book you would hate to see dramatized for fear that your beloved mental picture of a character would be desecrated?Upcoming Gatsby 3-D and On the Road adaptations, I’m looking at you….

It Is Sad That Diana Wynne Jones Died

Witch Week

Diana Wynne Jones died last week.  I hadn’t read all that much by her, but “Witch Week” was my favorite book when I was about 11, and it’s a really amazing read.

The story is about an alternate UK where the Gunpowder Plot succeeded, and witches are not only real, but still burned at the stake — all taking place in a boarding school for “witch orphans.” When it starts becoming clear that one of the kids at the school IS a witch, teachers, other kids, and the government start hunting for who it is.

Apart from being well-written, “Witch Week” is EXTREMELY dark for what is essentially a young adult novel.  The whole idea is that there are people ready and willing to kill children for who and what they are.  The protagonist (or one of them)  burns his hand on a candle to the point of blistering and bleeding to remind himself what the stakes are.  And it was written in the early eighties, when it was rarer than now for any kind of kids lit to be that dark, I think.

This is neither here or there, but the book is also an interesting corollary to the (overrated, I think) comic and movie V for Vendetta, where Guy Fawkes is essentially reborn as an anarchic hero.  In “Witch Week,” the Gunpowder Plot is presented as an act so evil that it would have basically blown apart the universe and the timeline if it succeeded.

But it’s a great book, and everybody should read it.  I should also read the rest of the Chrestomanci series, which it is (sort of) a part of, and I’ve never gotten around to.

Abusing Literature with Marjorie Garber

MarjGarb

CJ and I had the pleasure of seeing Marjorie Garber speak at the Harvard Bookstore last week. This was our second reading in five days–my, aren’t we cultured?

Total disclosure here: Professor Garber is one of my nerd-girl heroes. Girlfriend can arch an eyebrow during a lecture and it can speak volumes. However, what I’ve always appreciated about MargGarb is the way she handles difficult questions and textual frustrations from students with a firm sort of practicality that would make Mary Poppins proud. She always manages to make the questioner feel empowered yet accountable.

This sense of patience and confidence translated well from the lecture hall to the bookstore. Rather than read directly from her new book on literary criticism and reappropriation, The Use and Abuse of Literature, she told us the story of when she first knew she was interested in literary criticism as a teen. Her description of  hearing TS Eliot speak wove nicely in and out with her reflections on academia, her favorite types of literature, and some specifics from her new work. She was immensely personable and smart during the Q&A as well, ably shouldering some pretty sigh-worthy questions about Deconstructionism from an over-zealous audience member (only in Cambridge are we overzealous about Deconstructionism, I guess).

This reading made me even more of a MargGarb fangirl. It was nice to experience a writer whose literary persona and whose physical presence nicely match up.

Oh Yeah… Blog. Plus, Sarah Vowell and Snark.

Sarah Vowell

Hi everyone, starting this blog up again if anyone out there still cares. Huzzah!

Anyway, so on Friday CJ and I went to see Sarah Vowell read from her new book — “Unfamiliar Fishes,” about the history of Hawaii — at First Parish Church.

It was a very mixed experience. The bits of the book she read seemed great, really interesting and well researched and very funny. And she has a great presence when she’s reading, mostly because I picture Violet from “The Incredibles,” (whom she did the voice for) whenever she talks. I’ve never read her books, only heard her pieces on This American Life and read her various op-eds in the papers.

But the question and answer session afterwards was sort of creepy and unpleasant. She has this very snarky affect — I don’t know whether it’s her real personality or a kind of act — when she interacts with people. She shuts people down and sort of insults them and tries to score easy points off of the audience. It is very funny, for what it’s worth, but it’s also kind of insulting and cheap-seeming.

I don’t know what exactly she’s going for. I know that this kind of snark is a part of the whole McSweeney’s, This American Life oeuvre. But it bugs me. You can, after all, be very smart and funny and not also be a total dick to people. And someone like John Stewart — who Vowell called a peer of hers at one point during the reading — can pull off a certain amount of snark but also seems to have some actual compassion with whatever person he’s interacting with, even if that person is someone like Bill Kristol.

And what CJ pointed out is that the voice Vowell adopts in her books is quite different than the tone she took in the Q+A. She’s funny and snarky, but also someone who is interested in sharing information with her readers, which she seems completely uninterested in doing in person.

Vowell also made a couple offhand references to how she’s bummed that her op-eds never seem to have any effect on the world, making some joke about, oh, I might as well fax them to my wastebasket next to the desk etc. etc.

But from what I remember, her columns generally take the “oh, everyone is such an ass,” tone that she seems wont to fall into. As such, complaining about how nobody ever decides to revise his or her worldview based on her writing seems kind of lame.

And yet, I still want to read her book. Go figure.

A Few More Words on “War and Peace” From RNC Chairman Michael Steele

I’m sure many of you have already seen this, but it was relevant, so I had to post.

Make sure you wait until Steele “quotes” “War and Peace” for the full effect. I like when Tucker Carlson looks frantically at Grover Norquist to confirm that he hasn’t lost his mind.

Besides that though, I actually think Ann Wagner’s answer to this was kind of awesome (disregarding the book/bar misapprehension).  I don’t know that I would be ballsy enough to talk about drinking alone at my kitchen table at a political debate.

I’m Reading “War and Peace,” What Are You Doing?

Yeah I am.  So far it’s going well.  I tried once before a year before and gave up after a while.  I’m reading a different translation this time — Louise and Alymer Maude, apparently the old favorites whom I should have went with the first time around –  and it’s both a lot more pleasant and a lot easier to keep track of which characters are which.  Of course, ALL the characters are  referred to much of the time as “the Prince” or “the Princess,” which makes it harder.  If they are ALL princes and princesses, perhaps that is not the most helpful way to identify them.  Sigh.

But, I’m enjoying it quite a bit.  Pierre is a great character, and I like the part where he ties a policeman to a bear.  And Dolokhov is very cool and creepy.  And I haven’t even gotten to any actual war; everyone is still just going to parties in Saint Petersburg and Moscow.  I think it would all make a great HBO miniseries, but I’m thinking that about most things I read lately, and not everything can be made into an HBO miniseries.

It is still dauntingly long (and alarmingly, my copy is on hold back at the library on the 18th).  But if it keeps going along at this clip, I think I’ll be okay for the long haul.  I will keep ya’ll updated as things develop.  Spoiler: I predict that the bastard Pierre is going to be legitimized by the Emperor and inherit his father the Count Bezukhov’s vast fortune!