Saturday, December 29, 2007
The Gum Thief
Douglas Coupland
2007
This is a novel constructed from letters exchanged between cynical workers at Staples.
I guess I'm moving away from Douglas Coupland. In the end the book was touching. It had the usual offbeat insights, but wasn't as rich as some of his recent, and nowhere near his best. It was a bit like Tom Wolfe writing about Charlotte Simmons. Coupland should move past alienated 20 somethings. I think he's said all their is to say on the subject and after a while the characters stop being endearing and start becoming pathetic. If this was my first Coupland, perhaps I'd be kinder. Some of the imagery in Glove Pond, the novel in the novel, was interesting. And the playfulness of having the characters successively write novels featuring characters that are writing novels worked well, but I didn't feel much weight to it overall. A little gimicky and a bit off.
Douglas Coupland
2007
This is a novel constructed from letters exchanged between cynical workers at Staples.
I guess I'm moving away from Douglas Coupland. In the end the book was touching. It had the usual offbeat insights, but wasn't as rich as some of his recent, and nowhere near his best. It was a bit like Tom Wolfe writing about Charlotte Simmons. Coupland should move past alienated 20 somethings. I think he's said all their is to say on the subject and after a while the characters stop being endearing and start becoming pathetic. If this was my first Coupland, perhaps I'd be kinder. Some of the imagery in Glove Pond, the novel in the novel, was interesting. And the playfulness of having the characters successively write novels featuring characters that are writing novels worked well, but I didn't feel much weight to it overall. A little gimicky and a bit off.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Champion Of Freedom
Conrad Black
2005
This is an in depth one-volume biography of Roosevelt.
Big book. Long. Coming so soon after the six-volume study of Churchill, it is easy to compare. Roosevelt was bolder, more arogant, more confrontational and direct, and less willing to compromise. Churchill was (somewhat) of a consensus builder and . Roosevelt was self-serving, Churchill was generous to a fault. Last year at the Elgin Theater I was watching Gore Vidal speak. He said that the reason Roosevelt was able to rise to the challenge and meet Hitler was because the two of them were so much alike. Four terms as President, and with an authoritative command style in which anyone no longer useful was cut loose. And, like Hitler he fostered competition and discord among his subordinates choosing with the result that those beneath him worked harder and more ferociously. Roosevelt was the benevolent dictator US lawmakers had in mind when they amended the constitution restricting presidents to two terms. He was so powerful. He used his power for so much good, but that much power, I suppose, should never be in the hands of one person.
Along the way, as you're getting to know Roosevelt, you get a pretty good impression of Conrad Black as well (unless that impression came not from the book, but from seeing him on the news every night during the months I was reading.).
The book was wonderful. Black's broad, deep, vast, and rich knowledge of history is so complete that anecdotes are offered up in places where the reader only has to wonder again and again: "How does he know that?" It is much more hat a biography of Roosevelt, it is a colourful history of the war and a commentary on the great depression. In some cases it seems like Black is writing about an event, and he knows something unique that is only somewhat related to the event and not at all related to Roosevelt, but he just can't help writing about it because he'll probably never get a chance to offer up that bit of knowledge again (or he's showing off). I like when he does that, it makes the story richer.
The book took a log time to read, bit I'm happy I did. A study of Roosevelt should be pretty important to anyone focusing on electoral politics or management of power. And, as a conclusion to my year long study on WW2, it was indispensable.
Conrad Black
2005
This is an in depth one-volume biography of Roosevelt.
Big book. Long. Coming so soon after the six-volume study of Churchill, it is easy to compare. Roosevelt was bolder, more arogant, more confrontational and direct, and less willing to compromise. Churchill was (somewhat) of a consensus builder and . Roosevelt was self-serving, Churchill was generous to a fault. Last year at the Elgin Theater I was watching Gore Vidal speak. He said that the reason Roosevelt was able to rise to the challenge and meet Hitler was because the two of them were so much alike. Four terms as President, and with an authoritative command style in which anyone no longer useful was cut loose. And, like Hitler he fostered competition and discord among his subordinates choosing with the result that those beneath him worked harder and more ferociously. Roosevelt was the benevolent dictator US lawmakers had in mind when they amended the constitution restricting presidents to two terms. He was so powerful. He used his power for so much good, but that much power, I suppose, should never be in the hands of one person.
Along the way, as you're getting to know Roosevelt, you get a pretty good impression of Conrad Black as well (unless that impression came not from the book, but from seeing him on the news every night during the months I was reading.).
The book was wonderful. Black's broad, deep, vast, and rich knowledge of history is so complete that anecdotes are offered up in places where the reader only has to wonder again and again: "How does he know that?" It is much more hat a biography of Roosevelt, it is a colourful history of the war and a commentary on the great depression. In some cases it seems like Black is writing about an event, and he knows something unique that is only somewhat related to the event and not at all related to Roosevelt, but he just can't help writing about it because he'll probably never get a chance to offer up that bit of knowledge again (or he's showing off). I like when he does that, it makes the story richer.
The book took a log time to read, bit I'm happy I did. A study of Roosevelt should be pretty important to anyone focusing on electoral politics or management of power. And, as a conclusion to my year long study on WW2, it was indispensable.
Les Canadiens
Rick Salutin
1977
This is a play about Canadian history intertwined with the history of The Montreal Canadiens.
This play is outstanding. It's a unique idea, of the kind which Canadian theater should see much more. It has pride for both the hockey team and the country and approaches the history of each with Salutin's usual unapologetic left wing perspective. It opens on the Plains of Abraham, with the gun used to shoot Montcalme turning into a hockey stick. It goes from there sort of alternating between major events in the history of Canada and major events in the history of The Canadiens. It's not very touching or personal, but it does draw you in, and anyone with a passing knowledge of Canadian history is rewarded with through an understanding of the witty and clever framing of much of our history. I've never seen this play live, and I doubt I ever will (though I would jump at the opportunity to do so were it to come about) but it seems nearing impossible to stage successfully. It is full of action, roller skating, shooting hockey pucks, fights, and transitions from hockey rink to off ice. The only way I could see it being done, other than on a mega-production scale, wouls be to slim it down immensely and leave a lot to the imagination of the audience.
Rick Salutin
1977
This is a play about Canadian history intertwined with the history of The Montreal Canadiens.
This play is outstanding. It's a unique idea, of the kind which Canadian theater should see much more. It has pride for both the hockey team and the country and approaches the history of each with Salutin's usual unapologetic left wing perspective. It opens on the Plains of Abraham, with the gun used to shoot Montcalme turning into a hockey stick. It goes from there sort of alternating between major events in the history of Canada and major events in the history of The Canadiens. It's not very touching or personal, but it does draw you in, and anyone with a passing knowledge of Canadian history is rewarded with through an understanding of the witty and clever framing of much of our history. I've never seen this play live, and I doubt I ever will (though I would jump at the opportunity to do so were it to come about) but it seems nearing impossible to stage successfully. It is full of action, roller skating, shooting hockey pucks, fights, and transitions from hockey rink to off ice. The only way I could see it being done, other than on a mega-production scale, wouls be to slim it down immensely and leave a lot to the imagination of the audience.
