1998, first edition, from Random House
Molly Ivins
You Got to Dance with Them What Brung You: Politics in the Clinton Years
Possibly bought new for $23.00
Hardcover in good condition
C+
As the title suggests, this covers 1993 to '97, with the introduction addressing the Lewinsky scandal. As always, the focus is on both Texan and national politics, although those overlap at times, as when she writes about Ann Richards losing the governorship to George W. Bush. Ivins is critical of Clinton, although much less than Hightower was, partly because she feels the man faced enough criticism, from all sides. She's got a nifty piece on Nixon, happily speaking ill of the dead, because he deserved it. My favorite obituaries though were of her mother ("a combination of Sigmund Freud and Gracie Allen") and Jessica Mitford. I found the collection funnier than the last one, especially the thing about the boss who talked to a thermostat.
I've read but don't own 2000's Shrub: The Short But Happy Political Life of George W. Bush. (Yeah, talk about wishful thinking.) This is it for her among my books, and she died of cancer in 2007.
Monday, November 11, 2013
Welcome to the World, Baby Girl!
1998, 1999 Ballantine edition
Fannie Flagg
Welcome to the World, Baby Girl!
Probably bought new for $7.50
Worn paperback
C+
This isn't as good as Flagg's '80s novels, although, like Fried Green Tomatoes, its timeline jumps around. I was wrong though that there are no timeline errors in this book. As someone pointed out on Amazon, there's an 87-year-old woman who gives birth. And there's an elderly woman (mother-in-law of a 50-year-old) who looks back in 1948 to the 1904 World's Fair, when she was a "small child."
That's not the main problem with the book. There are several much more serious issues. One is that the main character, Dena, is not terribly sympathetic, albeit more likable than Rachel in Rachel's Holiday. Dena is an alcoholic and a workaholic, emotionally shut down after her mother's abandonment of her. For some reason, Dena's psychiatrist Gerry falls in love with her, and he spends most of the novel pining for her, which gets annoying. I also didn't really care about the plot of how far Dena will go along with the trend towards network-news tabloidization. (Think Hard Copy '70s style.)
The main person responsible for this trend is as ugly physically as he is morally, as is his female assistant. And the black woman who ruins the life of Dena's uncle to the point that he kills her is, according to a policeman, "so ugly I'm surprised somebody didn't kill her sooner." Dena and her mother are of course gorgeous.
I did like Dena's eccentric relatives and equally nutty best friend Sookie. I also wished that the "surprise" plot of Dena's mother being black (well, one-sixteenth) had been incorporated early on, rather than used for shock value, not all that different from a tabloid, now that I think of it. The stuff with the Neighbor Dorothy radio show was good, reminding me of the little newspapers in Flagg's earlier novels. If she had instead set the book in the 1940s entirely, or just had Dena be burnt out from work and go back to her hometown to hear these stories, it would've been a much better novel.
We'll see if Flagg's novels each being a notch worse than the previous one continues, when we get to Standing in the Rainbow, a sequel to Welcome, in 2002....
Fannie Flagg
Welcome to the World, Baby Girl!
Probably bought new for $7.50
Worn paperback
C+
This isn't as good as Flagg's '80s novels, although, like Fried Green Tomatoes, its timeline jumps around. I was wrong though that there are no timeline errors in this book. As someone pointed out on Amazon, there's an 87-year-old woman who gives birth. And there's an elderly woman (mother-in-law of a 50-year-old) who looks back in 1948 to the 1904 World's Fair, when she was a "small child."
That's not the main problem with the book. There are several much more serious issues. One is that the main character, Dena, is not terribly sympathetic, albeit more likable than Rachel in Rachel's Holiday. Dena is an alcoholic and a workaholic, emotionally shut down after her mother's abandonment of her. For some reason, Dena's psychiatrist Gerry falls in love with her, and he spends most of the novel pining for her, which gets annoying. I also didn't really care about the plot of how far Dena will go along with the trend towards network-news tabloidization. (Think Hard Copy '70s style.)
The main person responsible for this trend is as ugly physically as he is morally, as is his female assistant. And the black woman who ruins the life of Dena's uncle to the point that he kills her is, according to a policeman, "so ugly I'm surprised somebody didn't kill her sooner." Dena and her mother are of course gorgeous.
I did like Dena's eccentric relatives and equally nutty best friend Sookie. I also wished that the "surprise" plot of Dena's mother being black (well, one-sixteenth) had been incorporated early on, rather than used for shock value, not all that different from a tabloid, now that I think of it. The stuff with the Neighbor Dorothy radio show was good, reminding me of the little newspapers in Flagg's earlier novels. If she had instead set the book in the 1940s entirely, or just had Dena be burnt out from work and go back to her hometown to hear these stories, it would've been a much better novel.
We'll see if Flagg's novels each being a notch worse than the previous one continues, when we get to Standing in the Rainbow, a sequel to Welcome, in 2002....
Sunday, November 10, 2013
Split-Level Dykes to Watch Out For
1998, possible first edition, published by Firebrand Books
Alison Bechdel
Split-Level Dykes to Watch Out For
Bought new for $10.95
Slightly worn paperback
B
The title this time comes from Toni, Clarice, and Raffi's move to a better neighborhood. At the same time, in the bonus story (with a nifty map), Sydney moves in with Mo, and Ginger buys the house she, Lois, and Sparrow have been living in, although they have to have Sparrow's new sweetie move in. June, who we never saw much of, moves to Boston and then Sparrow, well.
LOIS: (on the phone) Hey, Ginger! Sounds like Sparrow's home. And I think she might have the mystery date in tow.
GINGER: (off-panel) Really? Who is it? What's she look like?
LOIS: Uh...kinda like Richard Dreyfuss in "Jaws," only balder.
Yes, Sparrow is dating a man, a white man, although she's still identifying as a lesbian. Meanwhile, Ginger and Toni are both reminiscing about their one-night stand of a decade ago, although this time it doesn't get beyond some flirting and sexual tension. As in the other recent collections, there's not much about politics, although Mo makes the point (one Deborah Rhode might agree with) that people would rather talk about the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal than about more serious issues.
I found this on a level with most of the other collections, probably the funniest moment being a cigar-smoking Lois's Groucho imitation. Next time, Post-Dykes to Watch Out For (2000)....
Alison Bechdel
Split-Level Dykes to Watch Out For
Bought new for $10.95
Slightly worn paperback
B
The title this time comes from Toni, Clarice, and Raffi's move to a better neighborhood. At the same time, in the bonus story (with a nifty map), Sydney moves in with Mo, and Ginger buys the house she, Lois, and Sparrow have been living in, although they have to have Sparrow's new sweetie move in. June, who we never saw much of, moves to Boston and then Sparrow, well.
LOIS: (on the phone) Hey, Ginger! Sounds like Sparrow's home. And I think she might have the mystery date in tow.
GINGER: (off-panel) Really? Who is it? What's she look like?
LOIS: Uh...kinda like Richard Dreyfuss in "Jaws," only balder.
Yes, Sparrow is dating a man, a white man, although she's still identifying as a lesbian. Meanwhile, Ginger and Toni are both reminiscing about their one-night stand of a decade ago, although this time it doesn't get beyond some flirting and sexual tension. As in the other recent collections, there's not much about politics, although Mo makes the point (one Deborah Rhode might agree with) that people would rather talk about the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal than about more serious issues.
I found this on a level with most of the other collections, probably the funniest moment being a cigar-smoking Lois's Groucho imitation. Next time, Post-Dykes to Watch Out For (2000)....
Saturday, November 9, 2013
Jane and the Wandering Eye
1998, paperback Bantam edition from later that year
Stephanie Barron
Jane and the Wandering Eye
Bought new for $5.99
Worn paperback
B-
This would be the best in the Jane Austen Mystery so far, if it weren't for the fact that Jane doesn't solve the mystery herself. Instead, she plays Watson to Lord Harold, the Gentleman Rogue whom she associates with, despite the disapproval of some of her family. We get much more of the Austens in this book than before, and Barron does a nice job with them, even when they sound a bit too Bennet-ish. (And there's a direct quote from the 1995 Sense & Sensibility movie, involving an ankle, but with a twist on the line if not the ankle.) The setting this time is Bath, which is interesting.
I don't think the real Austen would be so casual about others' adultery, or others would discuss scandal with her so openly, no matter how much freer the Regency period was compared to the Victorian. (The "wandering eye" is actually a portrait though.) A mixed bag overall, but with more potential than before. Understandably, I went on to get 1999's Jane and the Genius of the Place.
Stephanie Barron
Jane and the Wandering Eye
Bought new for $5.99
Worn paperback
B-
This would be the best in the Jane Austen Mystery so far, if it weren't for the fact that Jane doesn't solve the mystery herself. Instead, she plays Watson to Lord Harold, the Gentleman Rogue whom she associates with, despite the disapproval of some of her family. We get much more of the Austens in this book than before, and Barron does a nice job with them, even when they sound a bit too Bennet-ish. (And there's a direct quote from the 1995 Sense & Sensibility movie, involving an ankle, but with a twist on the line if not the ankle.) The setting this time is Bath, which is interesting.
I don't think the real Austen would be so casual about others' adultery, or others would discuss scandal with her so openly, no matter how much freer the Regency period was compared to the Victorian. (The "wandering eye" is actually a portrait though.) A mixed bag overall, but with more potential than before. Understandably, I went on to get 1999's Jane and the Genius of the Place.
The Youngest Miss Ward
1998, first U.S. edition, from St. Martin's Press
Joan Aiken
The Youngest Miss Ward
Original price $23.95, bought used for $6.00
Hardcover with broken spine
C+
This prequel to Austen's Mansfield Park focuses on a fourth sister, after Frances, Miss Harriet (or Hattie). She's sent away to live with relatives and then becomes a governess hidden away in the country, so her story doesn't overlap much with the original story. Unfortunately, what happens to her isn't nearly as interesting. (And Mansfield is the weakest of Austen's novels.) I was mildly interested in the teaching aspects of the book, but I didn't care about any of the romances, particularly the throwaway surprise one at the end. Far from the worst Austen spin-off I've read, but rather forgettable.
Joan Aiken
The Youngest Miss Ward
Original price $23.95, bought used for $6.00
Hardcover with broken spine
C+
This prequel to Austen's Mansfield Park focuses on a fourth sister, after Frances, Miss Harriet (or Hattie). She's sent away to live with relatives and then becomes a governess hidden away in the country, so her story doesn't overlap much with the original story. Unfortunately, what happens to her isn't nearly as interesting. (And Mansfield is the weakest of Austen's novels.) I was mildly interested in the teaching aspects of the book, but I didn't care about any of the romances, particularly the throwaway surprise one at the end. Far from the worst Austen spin-off I've read, but rather forgettable.
Friday, November 8, 2013
Cotton or China
It's the second anniversary of this blog! This past year has been less dramatic than the first, no major changes in my life, and only nineteen years of books. With only sixteen years to go (and that's assuming I buy some new books), I should be wrapping things up in the next few months. Last year I promised you "there will continue to be the sublime and the ridiculous, and a lot of stuff in between," and I think I can still offer that, as we move into the twenty-first century. Thank you to everyone who's been reading, especially the Charlotte Perkins Gilman fans!
Harry Potter and the Philosopher's [Sorcerer's] Stone
1997, British hardcover Bloomsbury edition from 2000, American paperback Scholastic edition from 1999
J. K. Rowling
American edition illustrated by Mary Grandpre
Harry Potter and the Philosopher's [Sorcerer's] Stone
Original and purchase prices unknown
Philosopher's in good shape although worn dustjacket, Sorcerer's falling apart
B
In some ways, this is one of the hardest books I've had to review, because I'm a huge Harry Potter fan, both books and movies. I didn't start out that way. In 2000, I decided I could no longer ignore the hype, so I read the first book. I thought it was OK, but it was basically a British school story with magic in it. Later, I decided to give the second book a shot, and it clicked with me more. So I went on to read the other two that were out at that point.
And then I was in the lobby of a movie theater, some point in 2001 it must've been, and the monitor was showing trailers. (That was a fairly new thing in itself, a way to pass time in the refreshments line.) And I watched the trailer for the new Harry Potter movie transfixed. Specifically, the nighttime shot of Hogwarts made me think "It's like Oz!" I felt like suddenly, in my early 30s, I'd been given back the wonder of the Oz series. And then when I saw the movie, I liked the books more than before. It just built from there for the last dozen years.
But how to write about this book somewhat in isolation? By definition, you can't be objective about your opinions. Although as a fan, I get a kick out of lines about "young Sirius Black" and Snape's ability to read minds, they don't pay off in this book. And to be honest, on its own terms, it really is a British school story with magic in it. The best part of the book is actually roughly the first third, before Harry gets to Hogwarts, the stuff with the Dursleys and/or Hagrid. It wasn't until my second or third reading that I realised the Roald Dahl meets Sinclair Lewis satiric tone of the first chapter, with Vernon having "a perfectly normal, owl-free morning."
Not that it's not nice to meet Ron, Hermione, Neville, etc., but we don't really get to know much about them in this book. (For instance, some of Ron's funniest moments, like "She needs to sort out her priorities," are only in the movie.) And I'm not entirely happy with Neville's arc here. He learns to stand up for himself, including to his friends, but he gets frozen by Hermione for doing so! And he's apparently forgotten by Hagrid and the others (including Rowling) in the Forbidden Forest. But he wins ten points, and Gryffindor gets the House Cup, so we're not supposed to mind.
There are some other clumsy moments, like characters seeking information that they obviously know, like Mrs. Weasley asking which platform they're going to. (She could've said, "Here we are, Platform Nine and Three-Quarters," for instance.) Or what about Harry's dream that he forgets by the next morning? I realise that the story isn't entirely from his perspective, but Rowling could've handled the inclusion of the dream better.
It's very much a kids' book, with the characterisation kept simple. When Dumbledore answers Harry's questions at the end, we're not supposed to think with hindsight, "You damn liar! You're even lying about not lying!" We're just supposed to take the answers on the level that Harry does.
As a kids' book, it works well, flaws aside, because it taps into not just the fantasy of magic but fantasies of friendship, sweets, animals, silliness, and simple triumphs. I can't say that Grandpre's illustrations are that memorable, except for how they carefully don't give away plot points. They get the job done, and they're better than the post-Neill Oz illustrations.
J. K. Rowling
American edition illustrated by Mary Grandpre
Harry Potter and the Philosopher's [Sorcerer's] Stone
Original and purchase prices unknown
Philosopher's in good shape although worn dustjacket, Sorcerer's falling apart
B
In some ways, this is one of the hardest books I've had to review, because I'm a huge Harry Potter fan, both books and movies. I didn't start out that way. In 2000, I decided I could no longer ignore the hype, so I read the first book. I thought it was OK, but it was basically a British school story with magic in it. Later, I decided to give the second book a shot, and it clicked with me more. So I went on to read the other two that were out at that point.
And then I was in the lobby of a movie theater, some point in 2001 it must've been, and the monitor was showing trailers. (That was a fairly new thing in itself, a way to pass time in the refreshments line.) And I watched the trailer for the new Harry Potter movie transfixed. Specifically, the nighttime shot of Hogwarts made me think "It's like Oz!" I felt like suddenly, in my early 30s, I'd been given back the wonder of the Oz series. And then when I saw the movie, I liked the books more than before. It just built from there for the last dozen years.
But how to write about this book somewhat in isolation? By definition, you can't be objective about your opinions. Although as a fan, I get a kick out of lines about "young Sirius Black" and Snape's ability to read minds, they don't pay off in this book. And to be honest, on its own terms, it really is a British school story with magic in it. The best part of the book is actually roughly the first third, before Harry gets to Hogwarts, the stuff with the Dursleys and/or Hagrid. It wasn't until my second or third reading that I realised the Roald Dahl meets Sinclair Lewis satiric tone of the first chapter, with Vernon having "a perfectly normal, owl-free morning."
Not that it's not nice to meet Ron, Hermione, Neville, etc., but we don't really get to know much about them in this book. (For instance, some of Ron's funniest moments, like "She needs to sort out her priorities," are only in the movie.) And I'm not entirely happy with Neville's arc here. He learns to stand up for himself, including to his friends, but he gets frozen by Hermione for doing so! And he's apparently forgotten by Hagrid and the others (including Rowling) in the Forbidden Forest. But he wins ten points, and Gryffindor gets the House Cup, so we're not supposed to mind.
There are some other clumsy moments, like characters seeking information that they obviously know, like Mrs. Weasley asking which platform they're going to. (She could've said, "Here we are, Platform Nine and Three-Quarters," for instance.) Or what about Harry's dream that he forgets by the next morning? I realise that the story isn't entirely from his perspective, but Rowling could've handled the inclusion of the dream better.
It's very much a kids' book, with the characterisation kept simple. When Dumbledore answers Harry's questions at the end, we're not supposed to think with hindsight, "You damn liar! You're even lying about not lying!" We're just supposed to take the answers on the level that Harry does.
As a kids' book, it works well, flaws aside, because it taps into not just the fantasy of magic but fantasies of friendship, sweets, animals, silliness, and simple triumphs. I can't say that Grandpre's illustrations are that memorable, except for how they carefully don't give away plot points. They get the job done, and they're better than the post-Neill Oz illustrations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)