1989, undated later edition, from Warner
Compiled by Jay Leno
Headlines: Real but Ridiculous Samplings from America's Newspapers
Original price $6.95, bought used for $3.95
Very worn paperback
B-
Still funny (if not hilarious) all these years later, these headlines are for the most part timeless. (However, the ad with a picture of O.J. Simpson, holding a turkey when it should be a ham, of course would be even stranger five years later.) I'd misremembered one of my favorites, "Trees can break wind," without the "can," but it works either way. Nearly every headline gets a sarcastic comment from Jay (often accompanied by a picture of him), so it captures the feel of him doing this routine on The Tonight Show. (He started performing it as guest host back in '87 and is still doing it as host.) I'm less happy with the cartoons that open each section. The caricatures of Leno (prominent jaw and all) are fine, but the background people are needlessly grotesque. I was going to mark the book down to a C+ for the cartoons but I decided that the book overcomes them enough to merit a B-.
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
Monday, May 27, 2013
Hooked
1989, first edition, from Dutton
Pauline Kael
Hooked
Probably bought newish for $14.95
Worn paperback
B
I found this more interesting and quotable than 1985's State of the Art. In fact, I often think of her remark here that the good movies don't make you feel virtuous. These movies are from '85 to '88, a time that she saw a gradual improvement in overall quality, so I'm guessing that's why she's "hooked," rather than more removed as she was earlier in the decade. (1991 will offer Movie Love.)
As always, the snarky reviews are the most fun, from "Top Gun is a recruiting poster that isn't concerned with recruiting but with being a poster" to her parenthetical remark that the armies in Willow "are led by a Darth Vader-like giant in a death's-head mask, General Kael--an hommage à moi." She often reports on audience reactions (general, as well as overheard comments, including from her viewing companions), which appeals to me because one of the reasons I like to go to the movies, especially to movies I've already seen, is to see how other people react. And as ever, even when I disagree with her, I like seeing how her mind works. (Even she can't convince me to see Blue Velvet though.) She agrees with Kathi Maio more than I remembered (and not just on Fatal Attraction), although Kael is a good deal less politically correct (or even political). Although transfolk would probably object to how she always refers to Divine as male, she is right on target about the appeal of Hairspray.
A good collection, still pertinent, even if it's hard to imagine Helena Bonham Carter was ever so young and unformed as to "lack the presence of an actress; she's recessive."
Pauline Kael
Hooked
Probably bought newish for $14.95
Worn paperback
B
I found this more interesting and quotable than 1985's State of the Art. In fact, I often think of her remark here that the good movies don't make you feel virtuous. These movies are from '85 to '88, a time that she saw a gradual improvement in overall quality, so I'm guessing that's why she's "hooked," rather than more removed as she was earlier in the decade. (1991 will offer Movie Love.)
As always, the snarky reviews are the most fun, from "Top Gun is a recruiting poster that isn't concerned with recruiting but with being a poster" to her parenthetical remark that the armies in Willow "are led by a Darth Vader-like giant in a death's-head mask, General Kael--an hommage à moi." She often reports on audience reactions (general, as well as overheard comments, including from her viewing companions), which appeals to me because one of the reasons I like to go to the movies, especially to movies I've already seen, is to see how other people react. And as ever, even when I disagree with her, I like seeing how her mind works. (Even she can't convince me to see Blue Velvet though.) She agrees with Kathi Maio more than I remembered (and not just on Fatal Attraction), although Kael is a good deal less politically correct (or even political). Although transfolk would probably object to how she always refers to Divine as male, she is right on target about the appeal of Hairspray.
A good collection, still pertinent, even if it's hard to imagine Helena Bonham Carter was ever so young and unformed as to "lack the presence of an actress; she's recessive."
The '90s: A Look Back
1989, first edition, from Avon
Edited by Tony Hendra & Peter Elbling
(with many contributors, including George Carlin, Bill Murray, Penn & Teller, Bob Saget, and Mike Wallace)
The '90s: A Look Back
Bought newish for $12.95
Worn paperback
C-
While I used to enjoy the '80s "look back" more than I now do, I'd always seen this as a lesser follow-up, so I was curious to see if it'd improved over time, or at least not declined as much as its predecessor. Well, I gave a C+ to the first book. Not only doesn't this have the thorough approach of the '80s book, but there are times when it's not merely unfunny but actually nonfunny or even anti-funny, as if deliberately not amusing the reader. At other times, the writers seem to think that merely referring to something will be an automatic laugh. For instance, while it's untrue that jokes about bestiality are never funny, it's also untrue that they're always funny. The section on sex with small mammals could've worked (in a sick way) if the contributor were wittier. On the other hand, even in my early 20s I was baffled by why the book closes out with a totally gratuitous insult to "women's writing," one that probably would amuse only the most rabid misogynist and seems to only serve the purpose of insulting half the readers.
That said, I thought Bob Saget's essay as a stay-at-home father/grandfather, nursing his 10-year-old daughter's baby, was kind of funny. (Particularly when you remember that he'd just started an eight-year run on Full House.) Jokes can be both fine and politically incorrect if they're well (or at least competently) done. When I see a photoshopped (or '80s equivalent) nude Marilyn Quayle, I'm not sure how to take it, especially as it's part of their Dragon Lady view of 1990s world leaders. It definitely doesn't work to have jokes about both the homeless (including the Reagans) and the second-homeless, because it gives an inconsistent view of the American economy in this fictitious decade. The '80s book gave more of a sense of continuity.
As for how this stacks up to the "real" 1990s (and let's face it, they did feel a bit surreal), the parts on China and Russia (Raisa's coup aside) were closest to reality, as those countries ceased to be Communist. On the other hand, King Chuck the Equal didn't exactly become ruler after Thatcher beheaded Elizabeth II.
Edited by Tony Hendra & Peter Elbling
(with many contributors, including George Carlin, Bill Murray, Penn & Teller, Bob Saget, and Mike Wallace)
The '90s: A Look Back
Bought newish for $12.95
Worn paperback
C-
While I used to enjoy the '80s "look back" more than I now do, I'd always seen this as a lesser follow-up, so I was curious to see if it'd improved over time, or at least not declined as much as its predecessor. Well, I gave a C+ to the first book. Not only doesn't this have the thorough approach of the '80s book, but there are times when it's not merely unfunny but actually nonfunny or even anti-funny, as if deliberately not amusing the reader. At other times, the writers seem to think that merely referring to something will be an automatic laugh. For instance, while it's untrue that jokes about bestiality are never funny, it's also untrue that they're always funny. The section on sex with small mammals could've worked (in a sick way) if the contributor were wittier. On the other hand, even in my early 20s I was baffled by why the book closes out with a totally gratuitous insult to "women's writing," one that probably would amuse only the most rabid misogynist and seems to only serve the purpose of insulting half the readers.
That said, I thought Bob Saget's essay as a stay-at-home father/grandfather, nursing his 10-year-old daughter's baby, was kind of funny. (Particularly when you remember that he'd just started an eight-year run on Full House.) Jokes can be both fine and politically incorrect if they're well (or at least competently) done. When I see a photoshopped (or '80s equivalent) nude Marilyn Quayle, I'm not sure how to take it, especially as it's part of their Dragon Lady view of 1990s world leaders. It definitely doesn't work to have jokes about both the homeless (including the Reagans) and the second-homeless, because it gives an inconsistent view of the American economy in this fictitious decade. The '80s book gave more of a sense of continuity.
As for how this stacks up to the "real" 1990s (and let's face it, they did feel a bit surreal), the parts on China and Russia (Raisa's coup aside) were closest to reality, as those countries ceased to be Communist. On the other hand, King Chuck the Equal didn't exactly become ruler after Thatcher beheaded Elizabeth II.
Friday, May 24, 2013
Princess Furball
1989, 1990 Scholastic edition
Princess Furball
Adapted by Charlotte Huck, illustrated by Anita Lobel
Original price $3.95, purchase price 49 cents
Worn paperback
C+
Our first picture book since the Peter Rabbit pop-up is an odd one, both because of the source material and the ways that Huck and Lobel interpret it. The original folktale has a widowed king who wants to marry his own daughter, while Huck has him offer her to a rich ogre, but in the illustration, the ogre's portrait looks like a wartier, more wrinkled version of the king. (And the nameless princess looks like her late mother.) So the incest has become subtext. Similarly, the princess asks her father for three beautiful dresses and a coat of a thousand furs, so for the latter we see animals being hunted, and then later the young good-looking king of another country goes hunting, and his men capture Princess Furball. It's never clear if they see her as a talking animal or as a girl in a fur coat.
The princess's "clever" scheme to capture the young king's interest is also odd, because she puts small golden objects in his soup (clearly a choking hazard), but doesn't use this opportunity to speak with him. Then finally he "catches Furball by the hand, and while she struggles to get free the fur coat falls open and he sees the star dress." And they live happily ever after, with three children in the last panel, including a girl who looks like her.
So the themes of capture and incest run all through the book, in both text and illustrations. Read it for a variation on the "Cinderella" theme, but don't expect a brilliant interpretation.
Princess Furball
Adapted by Charlotte Huck, illustrated by Anita Lobel
Original price $3.95, purchase price 49 cents
Worn paperback
C+
Our first picture book since the Peter Rabbit pop-up is an odd one, both because of the source material and the ways that Huck and Lobel interpret it. The original folktale has a widowed king who wants to marry his own daughter, while Huck has him offer her to a rich ogre, but in the illustration, the ogre's portrait looks like a wartier, more wrinkled version of the king. (And the nameless princess looks like her late mother.) So the incest has become subtext. Similarly, the princess asks her father for three beautiful dresses and a coat of a thousand furs, so for the latter we see animals being hunted, and then later the young good-looking king of another country goes hunting, and his men capture Princess Furball. It's never clear if they see her as a talking animal or as a girl in a fur coat.
The princess's "clever" scheme to capture the young king's interest is also odd, because she puts small golden objects in his soup (clearly a choking hazard), but doesn't use this opportunity to speak with him. Then finally he "catches Furball by the hand, and while she struggles to get free the fur coat falls open and he sees the star dress." And they live happily ever after, with three children in the last panel, including a girl who looks like her.
So the themes of capture and incest run all through the book, in both text and illustrations. Read it for a variation on the "Cinderella" theme, but don't expect a brilliant interpretation.
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
No Man's Land, Volume 2: Sexchanges
1989, undated later edition, from Yale University Press
Sandra M. Gilbert and Susan Gubar
No Man's Land: The Place of the Woman Writer in the Twentieth Century, Volume 2: Sexchanges
Original price unknown, purchase price $2.00
Very worn paperback with broken spine
B-
I read a library copy of Gilbert & Gubar's Madwoman in the Attic (1979) twenty years after its initial publication and loved it. But then it did focus on 19th-century women's writing, not just their title character, from Jane Eyre (and Miss Eyre herself), but the subjects of Austen, Eliot, and Dickinson. Here, the co-authors look at the "modernists," covering roughly 1885 to 1940, with World War I central in more than one sense. They examine the works of male as well as female writers, to discuss the ways that changing sex roles were feared and desired, sometimes simultaneously by the same author. As the subtitle of this volume suggests, sexual orientation, as well as "transvestism" and "transsexuality," are part of this.
While there are some interesting insights-- I was intrigued by the idea that Alice B. Toklas actually wrote or at least cowrote her "autobiography"-- I was generally less interested in both the time period and the novelists and poets that G & G chose to represent it, compared to the subjects of Madwoman. I'd much rather have seen their take on Sinclair Lewis's conflicted attitude towards women than Ezra Pound's or (yet again) D. H. Lawrence's. (I got enough of him with Millett's Sexual Politics).
Oddly enough, as with Fritz's Path, the now most thought-provoking aspect here is actually their references to the 1980s, including the androgyny of Yentl and Boy George.
Sandra M. Gilbert and Susan Gubar
No Man's Land: The Place of the Woman Writer in the Twentieth Century, Volume 2: Sexchanges
Original price unknown, purchase price $2.00
Very worn paperback with broken spine
B-
I read a library copy of Gilbert & Gubar's Madwoman in the Attic (1979) twenty years after its initial publication and loved it. But then it did focus on 19th-century women's writing, not just their title character, from Jane Eyre (and Miss Eyre herself), but the subjects of Austen, Eliot, and Dickinson. Here, the co-authors look at the "modernists," covering roughly 1885 to 1940, with World War I central in more than one sense. They examine the works of male as well as female writers, to discuss the ways that changing sex roles were feared and desired, sometimes simultaneously by the same author. As the subtitle of this volume suggests, sexual orientation, as well as "transvestism" and "transsexuality," are part of this.
While there are some interesting insights-- I was intrigued by the idea that Alice B. Toklas actually wrote or at least cowrote her "autobiography"-- I was generally less interested in both the time period and the novelists and poets that G & G chose to represent it, compared to the subjects of Madwoman. I'd much rather have seen their take on Sinclair Lewis's conflicted attitude towards women than Ezra Pound's or (yet again) D. H. Lawrence's. (I got enough of him with Millett's Sexual Politics).
Oddly enough, as with Fritz's Path, the now most thought-provoking aspect here is actually their references to the 1980s, including the androgyny of Yentl and Boy George.
The Path of Least Resistance
1989, but revised from 1984 edition, yet with a URL on the back, Random House
Robert Fritz
The Path of Least Resistance: Learning to Become the Creative Force in Your Own Life
Possibly bought newish for very over-priced $12.00
Slightly worn paperback
C
I don't find self-help books helpful. I'm not even sure when, where, why, or possibly from whom I got this book. I think I (slowly) read it once before, and remembered the message as finding out what you want and focusing on that goal. Rereading it now, the premise is both more complex and more confusing than that. Fritz doesn't address, for instance, what to do when you want two things equally and they seem to be in opposition, other than to pick one and hope that the other will come to you in some form. While I do appreciate that Fritz is trying to get away from the "problem-solving" personal growth field, he doesn't really explain how to get where you're going. And while he's right that dwelling too much on the past (whether infancy or this morning) is crippling, you can't really just live in the moment, with no baggage. If we're to learn from experience, as he recommends, that includes the negatives.
The book is actually most interesting in that it's a product of its time (although he did come out with a 2011 edition, for managers). Unlike Alexander Cockburn's wariness about the personal computer a couple years earlier, Fritz sees this invention as a tool for creativity, and I think for the most part he's been proven more right than Cockburn. Also, Fritz has a point about people like Helen Caldicott sometimes scaring people further into passivity, rather than motivating them. Fritz himself seems to want to be both Yuppie inspirational speaker (much of the book is an ad for his Technologies for Creating), and '60s idealist who thinks that what JFK said counts for more than what he did.
The path of least resistance turns out to be a tough slog.
Robert Fritz
The Path of Least Resistance: Learning to Become the Creative Force in Your Own Life
Possibly bought newish for very over-priced $12.00
Slightly worn paperback
C
I don't find self-help books helpful. I'm not even sure when, where, why, or possibly from whom I got this book. I think I (slowly) read it once before, and remembered the message as finding out what you want and focusing on that goal. Rereading it now, the premise is both more complex and more confusing than that. Fritz doesn't address, for instance, what to do when you want two things equally and they seem to be in opposition, other than to pick one and hope that the other will come to you in some form. While I do appreciate that Fritz is trying to get away from the "problem-solving" personal growth field, he doesn't really explain how to get where you're going. And while he's right that dwelling too much on the past (whether infancy or this morning) is crippling, you can't really just live in the moment, with no baggage. If we're to learn from experience, as he recommends, that includes the negatives.
The book is actually most interesting in that it's a product of its time (although he did come out with a 2011 edition, for managers). Unlike Alexander Cockburn's wariness about the personal computer a couple years earlier, Fritz sees this invention as a tool for creativity, and I think for the most part he's been proven more right than Cockburn. Also, Fritz has a point about people like Helen Caldicott sometimes scaring people further into passivity, rather than motivating them. Fritz himself seems to want to be both Yuppie inspirational speaker (much of the book is an ad for his Technologies for Creating), and '60s idealist who thinks that what JFK said counts for more than what he did.
The path of least resistance turns out to be a tough slog.
Monday, May 20, 2013
Harry and Wally's Favorite TV Shows
1989, first edition, from Prentice Hall Press
Harry and Wally's Favorite TV Shows: A Fact-Filled Opinionated Guide to the Best and Worst on TV
Probably bought new, for $14.95
Worn paperback
C+
Like 1985's Cult TV, the historical aspect of this book balances out its flaws. H & W review (zero to four stars) about 2,100 different shows, from 1948 to the fall of 1989. (I know the book claims it covers half a century, but it barely touches even the Truman era.) The subtitle is more accurate than the title, in that these are not just their favorites but also shows that they hate, dislike, are indifferent to, or only slightly like. Confusingly, a 2 1/2 star show may be described as "great," while another is a marginal recommendation. There are noticeable typos and a few errors. (For instance, I remembered Evie's parents as married on Out of This World, and Wikipedia confirms this, but H & W think Evie is the result of a fling.) Sometimes they over-explain things, such as what "LBJ" stands for. (As an abbreviation I mean, not his principles.) And they have a strong bias against any show, especially a 1970s drama, that attempts to be "relevant."
On the other hand, the book is readable, even at 600+ pages, with a lively, sometimes funny style. As with Cult TV, it captures the 1980s experience of TV shows becoming rewatchable on VHS, with those four intervening years making this even more possible. And dig this for irony, "Until someone comes up with the ultimate in viewer-oriented channels (which we'd subscribe to tomorrow, no questions asked), it's definitely worth exploring" home video. With Hulu and Youtube and etc., viewers do have much more ability to be their own "programmers." But it was exciting in the late '80s to buy, rent, or check out from the library some of the shows you liked, or were at least curious about. (I was a library volunteer the summer before I started college, '86, and I made show capsules for VHS boxes.)
There are smaller ironies here, like that no one on Fridays went on to greater fame. (Cough*MichaelRichards*cough.) If you run across this book (long out of print, never updated), you'll probably most get a kick out of reading the '80s reviews, since the reputations of the earlier shows haven't changed drastically in the last almost quarter-century. Moonlighting had just left the air when this book was published, so it's that era. And they just missed by a few months the classic ending to Newhart, which makes the opening of their review surprisingly prescient: "Imagine this: Soon after Chicago psychologist Bob Hartley left his practice to write and teach, he and his wife split. He changed his name, became a full-time writer, remarried, and moved east to run a small Vermont inn."
Harry and Wally's Favorite TV Shows: A Fact-Filled Opinionated Guide to the Best and Worst on TV
Probably bought new, for $14.95
Worn paperback
C+
Like 1985's Cult TV, the historical aspect of this book balances out its flaws. H & W review (zero to four stars) about 2,100 different shows, from 1948 to the fall of 1989. (I know the book claims it covers half a century, but it barely touches even the Truman era.) The subtitle is more accurate than the title, in that these are not just their favorites but also shows that they hate, dislike, are indifferent to, or only slightly like. Confusingly, a 2 1/2 star show may be described as "great," while another is a marginal recommendation. There are noticeable typos and a few errors. (For instance, I remembered Evie's parents as married on Out of This World, and Wikipedia confirms this, but H & W think Evie is the result of a fling.) Sometimes they over-explain things, such as what "LBJ" stands for. (As an abbreviation I mean, not his principles.) And they have a strong bias against any show, especially a 1970s drama, that attempts to be "relevant."
On the other hand, the book is readable, even at 600+ pages, with a lively, sometimes funny style. As with Cult TV, it captures the 1980s experience of TV shows becoming rewatchable on VHS, with those four intervening years making this even more possible. And dig this for irony, "Until someone comes up with the ultimate in viewer-oriented channels (which we'd subscribe to tomorrow, no questions asked), it's definitely worth exploring" home video. With Hulu and Youtube and etc., viewers do have much more ability to be their own "programmers." But it was exciting in the late '80s to buy, rent, or check out from the library some of the shows you liked, or were at least curious about. (I was a library volunteer the summer before I started college, '86, and I made show capsules for VHS boxes.)
There are smaller ironies here, like that no one on Fridays went on to greater fame. (Cough*MichaelRichards*cough.) If you run across this book (long out of print, never updated), you'll probably most get a kick out of reading the '80s reviews, since the reputations of the earlier shows haven't changed drastically in the last almost quarter-century. Moonlighting had just left the air when this book was published, so it's that era. And they just missed by a few months the classic ending to Newhart, which makes the opening of their review surprisingly prescient: "Imagine this: Soon after Chicago psychologist Bob Hartley left his practice to write and teach, he and his wife split. He changed his name, became a full-time writer, remarried, and moved east to run a small Vermont inn."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)