The Hound of the Baskervilles - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

If you didn’t already guess, I pretty much suck at maintaining websites and at writing and at doing stuff worth writing about. Well I could talk about my WoW exploits, but I want to preserve some semblance of not being a complete junkie…though I suspect I’ve already failed at that, as well. Anyway, the one thing I have going for this site is my book reviews, because now that the mind-drain that was college is long over, I can go back to reading for fun like I used to in “the old days.” And while I’m no New York Times Book Reviewer (or even a mildly popular blogger) I continue to write up my reviews so that I can one day look over my posts and say “ah yes, I recall reading that book and according to this post written by me, found it extremely enjoyable…not sure why I don’t remember a thing that happens in it.” Why this happened just the other day when I was reading my blog titles and saw a post on Slaughterhouse-Five and I said “what the-…which book is-…oh right, right, I did read that book…huh.” But I digress. On to the book review.

It’s funny to me how I’ve always known of Sherlock Holmes. And who hasn’t heard “Elementary, my dear Watson,” in some long forgotten context, which actually never really existed? Yet I’ve never read a mystery novel written by Sir Conan Doyle, and I’m pretty sure I’ve never seen any of the TV movies or mini-series. Probably the closest I ever got to see an adaptation of a Sherlock Holmes story was that Saved by the Bell episode where the gang winds up in some cooky old house playing a 90’s version of those mystery dinner role-playing games (those crazy kids). By the by, googling “mystery dinner role-playing” will lead to quite a few groups out there that actually stage these things for you…there’s just a whole other world out there, sometimes, is what I’m saying (and, no, it’s not pr0n). So I was actually looking forward to picking up The Hound of the Baskervilles and discovering for myself what this Holmes guy was all about. Many thanks to Rock who donated Sir Conan Doyle’s complete collection to my measly library.

Reminds me of the upcoming Worgen class for WoW....dammit, there I go again!

The first thing that jumped out, which is probably not news to anyone, is that the story is told from Watson’s point of view, and not at all from Holmes’. In fact, Holmes was absent for a good part of the story (maybe a little over half the story) so that overall we experience the entire story as Watson does. Watson is clever and inquisitive but not a master-mind like Holmes, and so, as the reader’s proxy, he is as perplexed and surprised by the conundrums of the story as the reader is. As clever as Watson is, his explanations (like ours) tend to be wrong, something which (in my opinion) amuses Holmes to no end. To be perfectly honest, I would have to say that Holmes is an arrogant, teasing, righteous know-it-all. However, he does actually know it all, so you can’t fault the guy for looking down on everyone else.

The story itself sounded like the makings of a decent X-Files episode, in which an older gentleman is found dead in his own backyard from what appears to be a heart attack, but the locals are convinced that the man was attacked by a supernatural creature in the form of a hound with blazing eyes and jaws (though I’m betting there are many X-Files episodes with similar premises…there’s only so much supernatural stuff to go around). The gentleman is Sir Charles Baskerville, the wealthy land-owner in the area (obviously), who dies leaving only one heir, Sir Henry Baskerville. Dr. Mortimer, a friend of the family, hires Holmes to solve the mystery and protect Sir Henry, who is believed to be in danger. According to Dr. Mortimer, the Baskervilles have been cursed for centuries by the Hound of the Baskervilles, who kills the Baskerville heirs as revenge for the evil doings of Sir Hugo Baskerville, described as an evil and sadistic man who enjoyed kidnapping women and later sending his hounds after them when they got away.

Knowing nothing about the story, I was not expecting any supernatural elements, which really make the story creepier. I was expecting very formal writing where nothing too unpleasant happens and murders are committed quietly and neatly. In fact, the story can get gory and violent without being over-the-top or cheesy. The story-telling did lose a bit of steam towards the last quarter of the book, as the mystery is resolved well before the end, but I think I’ve gotten too used to mystery stories that rely on the last 20 pages to bring all the events to the climax (Harry Potter, I’m looking at you). Overall, though, I highly enjoyed it and am glad I have finally read a Sherlock Holmes mystery. For those wondering, this was another card in my deck of 52 Great Books to Read.

20 down, 32 to go.

Jane Eyre - Charlotte Bronte

Out of my deck of cards. Unlike most, if not all, other 13-yr old girls on this planet, I did not pick up Jane Eyre during junior high (I’m not saying I strayed from Victorian romances, but that I picked up Wuthering Heights instead). I believe if I had read this book back then, I would have swooned over the romance much more than I did (after all, isn’t it the fantasy of every school girl to learn that that cute boy she has a huge crush on, the one that seems so unattainable, is secretly having a huge crush on her?). However, as a school girl harboring crushes of her own, the rest of Jane Eyre would have probably gone right over my head. As such, I’m glad I didn’t pick this up until now, since I was much more interested in Jane’s strengths as a character, completely independent of the romance storyline with Edward “Stephanie Meyer only wishes she could write Byronic heroes this good” Rochester.

Like an orphan out of a Dickens’s story (or like any heroine in a Mexican soap opera), Jane goes through some pretty tough times before finding happiness. Orphaned as a little girl, she is taken in by her uncaring aunt, then sent to a strict religious boarding school (the kind where it’s always cold and everyone is always hungry and the Man always finds a way to suck the joy out of life), and then confronted with the death of her only friend. Eventually she becomes a teacher and gets a job as a governess with Rochester as her employer. I guess I let the cat out of the bag by saying there is a romance between the two (no surprise there, though, right?) but, for a tragic heroine, things are never that easy. That’s just volume one of this book.

Anyway, there’s more to it of course, but the point is Jane survives and rises above a number of trials that would have broken down most people. I like the description given in the back of the card, and I don’t see the need of saying it any better: “Jane Eyre lives in a world of cruelty and injustice, yet nothing breaks her spirit. Readers today are still inspired by Jane’s rebellion and passion – traits that were considered merely daring in a society that had little use for a single woman.”

Now I know next to nothing about Victorian society, but I can imagine how some of Jane’s actions would have been pretty scandalous, or against what was expected. Above all else, and despite how cliché it sounds, she remains true to herself, and is committed to maintaining her sense of integrity and morality despite whatever hell may come after. Now there’s a role model that is worth reading about (not to sound preachy, but this book and this character beat the hell out of most of the young adult garbage that is out there these days).

My only complaint is that the narrative itself is pretty boring. I don’t mean the writing style is bad, just that it’s extremely proper and too straightforward (if that makes any sense…). Bronte also tends to go on and on at times, which can get a bit drowsy (I did possibly end up merely skimming some pages; I definitely skimmed over most of the whole St. John argument). Knowing that there’s no reason for comparing Emily and Charlotte other than because they are sisters, I will just say this: Wuthering Heights has more originality and drama, but Jane Eyre has more normal, relatable, and likable characters.

19 down, 33 to go.

The Subtle Knife - Phillip Pullman

Book two of Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy (audiobook format). I'm not sure what to say about this book...I think I liked it, but it took me nearly a month to finish (listening to, not reading) because I couldn't make myself stop listening to Broken River Prophet and put this on instead. That is partly due to BRP being awesome, but it was also due to Subtle Knife not being very engaging. Yes, that might be a good description, not engaging. I can think of things I liked: I loved Will (a lot of that might have to do with how good the actor's voice is); really liked Mrs. Coulter who is the kind of villain you love to hate, though there wasn't enough of her in this book; inter-dimensional travel is a plus to any fantasy story IMO (check The Riftwar Saga); the Specters turn every adult in one particular world into essentially zombies (zombies always being another plus in any genre); you get a relatively decent cliffhanger at the end, enough to make me read the first chapter of the last book right then; and, kinda unrelated, it was very well acted.

But, overall, it was a bit of a sleeper. There wasn't enough intrigue, not much mystery, and nothing totally unexpected happened. Will and Lyra meet up in an alternate universe from their own, where they realize they are both on related quests and must help each other (or, I think Lyra is told by her golden compass that she has to help Will, but same deal). After that, they run into some good people, some bad people, lose some things, acquire others, travel a lot, escape the "authorities," realize they are destined for greatness if they can only overcome their personal doubts and fears (Will), don't get to realize that they are destined for greatness if they can overcome the people that are trying to kill them (Lyra, but hang tight, your time will come in book 3), and get help from others who must make sure these two succeed above all else.

I sound mean, I know. To be fair, it's not a terrible setup, and there are a lot of different bits and pieces going on at once that will lead up to something. But, it sounds kinda rehashed, the story-telling is too serious, and maybe I'm going deaf, but I'm not really sure what this is all leading up to. At this point, I think the main conflict is that there's a side that wants to bring down God and another side that doesn't agree (yes, God). Why bring him down? Well, as far as I can make it out, Pullman is turning the tables: instead of a God that represents good (the way we know it), God in this story is the bad guy. Long ago, when the angels rebelled in Heaven and lost, things started to go bad. Now a similar war is coming, but this time "the right side must win."

Now I'm not saying that this plot is objectionable. It's actually pretty interesting, the idea that you would need to overturn a Supreme authority that you consider your God because, in actuality, he's a jerk. It worked for Stargate. But Pullman doesn't give us much in the way of back-story. Presumably that's book three.

That’s my take, anyway. At this point, I’m not jumping up and down with excitement to start book three (I’m certainly not using two Audible credits to get it, rather than the customary one, so I’ll have to read the hardcopy at some point). I’m hoping that the twist in book three is that Lord Asriel (the guy leading the rebellion against God) ends up making things way worse and everyone that supported him is left standing with egg on their face. Then again, if that does happen, it won’t be much of a twist. And if it doesn’t happen, then we just end up with a story about a guy beating God with a subtle knife and a golden compass (I guess an amber spyglass will feature somehow, as well).

Peter Pan - J.M. Barrie

Chalk up this unusual selection to my deck of cards. Knowing the story pretty well (and having watched the Disney version and Hook), I would have never picked this up on my own. But it actually did make for an interesting read, only because the details in the story are so much more bizarre than just the general plot. Barrie makes for a weird story-teller: oftentimes he is very cute and his writing is very silly (like Alice in Wonderland), but his writing also has an undercurrent of biting sarcasm (in the way the narrator will mock Mr. and Mrs. Darling, or call the children heartless, or deride Peter Pan). It's not something that is very pronounced but it just sounds like the narrator (who I assume is Barrie, but I suppose it could just be a made-up voice) is mean to the characters and doesn't necessarily like them.

I was surprised at how prominent the themes about motherhood and growing up without a mother actually are in the story. Peter doesn't just like Wendy a lot, he wants a mother. It's not just Peter Pan either. All the Lost Boys, and even the pirates, want a mother more than anything else. The pirates kidnap Wendy so she'll be their mother. And Peter won't admit it but the most scarring event in his life was being separated from his mother (I don't remember if the mother left him or he left his mother). It also gets complicated when Wendy does grow up and become a mother for real, because now Peter hates her for growing up but he still wants a mother so he turns to...Wendy's daughter. And then Wendy's granddaughter. And, in today's skeptical society, that sounds very odd I guess, but I think the point is that, for Peter (and, I suppose, the other motherless characters), grown-ups can't be caring and nurturing and adventurous all at the same time, but children can as long as they are "gay and innocent and heartless."

Now, the heartless part sounds weird to me, but those are the author's words. Barrie (or the narrator) is saying children are heartless because they can very easily leave their parents and go off with Peter Pan like Wendy and John and Michael and forget about their home and forget they ever had parents and not realize their parents are back home, sad and waiting. So, is he saying that's a good thing? It's also difficult to say whether he thinks growing up is a good thing or a bad thing. He writes that Neverland is this wonderful place where children don't grow up, where they will always be innocent and happy. But Neverland also makes them forget their family and so they become "heartless" and selfish (in the case of Peter, he eventually even forgets about Hook, and about Tinkerbell, and he forgets about Wendy to such an extent that he doesn't see her again for years). But then everyone (including the Lost Boys, except Peter Pan) return to England and everyone grows up and they settle down "to being as ordinary as you or me."

I think that, in the end, the point Barrie is trying to make ends up being more than just "never grow up" (which seems to be how his story is always remembered). I think what the moral of the story amounts to is that growing up is inevitable, and refusing to grow up just makes you selfish and heartless, but growing up doesn't mean you have to stop believing in innocence and adventure and wonder (even though Wendy grows up, she still remembers Peter fondly and retells his story to her own daughter).

I also have to mention that Hook is the most interesting and complex character in the story. He's not just the one-dimensional ruthless pirate. I mean, he is a pretty typical ruthless pirate, but he's also trying to be an effective and respected leader - while at the same time suffering from soul-crushing self-consciousness and doubts about his ability. He's always concerned with "good form" (with playing by the rules and with appearing to others as a gentleman who is skilled in proper social conduct) - while at the same time being a backstabber and knowing full well that much of what he does is in "bad form." Actually, I found the "good form-bad form" internal struggle Hook has surprising to read, because I thought that was just something that was thrown into the Hook movie version. After reading the story, though, I can say that Hook is the most faithful adaptation of the actual story (if you ignore that Peter Pan is played by a very grown up Robin Williams), right down to the issues about Peter's mother and Hook and many other things. Well, even the montage where we see Wendy growing up and becoming older and all that, is in the story. The Disney version just captures the silliness and the adventure (although it does do a good job of capturing Peter as a jerk...he was kind of a conceited brat). And I know I watched the new Peter Pan movie, but I mostly remember being bored with that one.

I almost want to watch Hook now.

18 down, 34 to go.

How to Piss Off a Country in 13 Steps: Lessons from Honduras

The following is a step-by-step guide on how to become the most hated guy in Honduras. Thanks to ex-President Zelaya for his contributions.

1. Announce that, as President, you want to add a ballot during the regularly scheduled elections (November 2009) to determine whether a Constitutional Assembly should be convened to amend the Constitution (but don't announce what changes you're hoping to make, even if people suspect that you're trying to amend the one-term law which limits a President's term to four years and prohibits re-election).

2. Decide that you will conduct an opinion poll to allow the general public to vote on whether they want to add the aforementioned ballot to the elections (regardless of the fact that the Constitution prevents any referendums from being made 180 days prior to or after an election, and regardless of the fact that the executive branch does not have the authority to hold such a vote).

3. After Congress passes a bill prohibiting the opinion poll (which they've ruled is unconstitutional, as mentioned in step 2), decide that you'll use your taxpayer's money to hire an independent firm to conduct the vote.

4. Order your Chief of Armed Forces to distribute the ballot boxes (which Congress said was illegal). (Note: the Armed Forces is the entity that conducts elections so you have to ask them to do this).

5. At this point your Chief of Armed Forces will refuse to carry out this illegal activity for you. Fire him promptly. The commanders of the Air Force and Navy will resign in protest but you can just announce that you'll run things completely on your own from now on.

6. Congress will then say "Excuse me, you can't fire these people, they will be reinstated, ok? Thanks, bye-bye." You may now refuse to comply with this announcement and retaliate by leading a mob into the Armed Forces Headquarters to pick up the ballot boxes in order to distribute them yourself. While it is legal for you to enter Headquarters, it may be seen as illegal to break through the gate and lead civilians in, but just go ahead and disregard that for now.

7. Collect the ballot boxes that were assembled in, and delivered from, Venezuela. Your good friend Hugo Chavez, who oversaw the assembly (and maybe stuffed the boxes for you in advance) sends his best and wishes you good luck.

8. Brace yourself, because now that you've pissed off Congress, the Supreme Court, and your own political party, they will be sending the Army over to your house to walk you out at gunpoint and put you on a plane and expatriate you to Costa Rica (they should arrest you and put you in jail but this could lead to civil violence, so they would rather decide to send you away). This will endear you to the international community so don't worry just yet. And mention your pajamas repeatedly.

9. The international community will now rally to you, despite your strong ties to Castro and Chavez, and demand that you be reinstated (we can't figure out why they fail to understand that your removal from office was legally mandated either, so just roll with it).

10. After a few days of putting your cause out there, and getting support from the media and other governments, decide that you will triumphantly return to your country to take up your post.

11. When the army blocks the runway with their tanks and prevents you from landing, just send out a call over national radio asking your supporters to break into the runway and show those armed soliders who's boss. One of your supporters will unfortunately lose his life over this crazy endeavor, and the runway will remain blocked so that you'll have to land in El Salvador, but at least you got the media attention you wanted.

12. For the love of God, don't try to go back to Honduras! They have about 12 arrest warrants with your name on them, including treason and drug trafficking. Stay low, continue to fly around to Washington and Costa Rica and gather international support for your cause.

13. At this point the international community will appoint a Nobel Peace laureate as mediator so that you and the interim government that was legally appointed after you were exiled can reach an agreement. The interim government will obstinately refuse to reinstate you and threaten to arrest you if you return but you still have international support. Find a way to drag this out forever.

Ta-da!

This step-by-step guide does not include the pre-requisite tasks that must be concluded first in order to fully piss of a country. These actions include appealing to the poorest sectors of society claiming you are "one of the people" despite your multi-million business enterprises; flying yourself, your family, your extended family, your servants, and your horse to various countries on taxpayer money (call it public relations); allying yourself with Chavez and joining him in talking crap about the U.S., your traditional ally and largest trading partner (also disregarding the thousands of Honduran immigrants that are awaiting a decision on their refugee status in the U.S.). There's more but this should keep you busy for now.

Congratulations, you've just become the most hated man in Honduras!

***

In all seriousness, if this was a research paper, I would have cited all the steps listed above. But (thank God!) I'm not in school anymore so I don't have to follow the rules. Instead, I've assembled a bunch of links that explain and document the situation better than I have (I'm no political or legal expert, I'm just a relocated Honduran that is worried and upset and a tad pissed off at several people, including Clinton (cow)). A million thanks to my friend Figgy and to La Gringa for rounding up these links. Please check out their sites if you want to learn more, they're doing an amazing job of reporting on the issue from the actual scene.

Events leading up to removal of President Zelaya

Following the removal of President Zelaya

Diplomatic Attempts

Trying to return to the country

The U.S. Stance

Chavez being insane

Going on in U.S. Congress

It wasn't a coup

Testimony of The Honorable Otto J. Reich, Committee on Foreign Affairs

Why Honduras Sent Zelaya Away

Requiem for a Dream With a Happy Ending

I finally got around to watching Slumdog Millionarie this weekend (or, I should say, Netflix finally got around to sending me a copy after it had been on Very Long Wait status for about five weeks). As you can probably tell from the title of this post (assuming you've watched Requiem for a Dream), this movie reminded me a lot of that movie. In other words, it's a movie where a lot of really messed-up things happen to generally decent people (though I guess the people in Requiem weren't all that decent). Like Requiem, this movie made me cringe, made me depressed, and (strangely enough) made me sick to my stomach. While the queasy feeling in my stomach is partly due to a scene where a kid is blinded using scalding oil (I didn't appreciate the vomiting scene either), it is mostly due to the incredibly annoying way in which the movie was shot. The shaky camera, the out of focus shots, and the running sequences shot with hand-held cameras gave me vertigo and a headache approximately 20 minutes into the movie.

The story itself was interesting. Jamal, from the slums of Mumbai, India, enters India's "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?" game show. Exceeding all expectations, he answers all questions correctly up to the 10 million rupee question, which he blindly guesses (though, honestly, that would never be a top question because it is a ridiculously easy answer). Suspected of cheating, he is questioned by the police, where he retells the critical events in his life that have shaped him into who he is. More importantly though, he has gathered bits of knowledge from these events, which is how he is able to answer the game show questions.

The movie is undeniably powerful, emotional, and generally quite good. And, unlike Requiem, it has a happy ending, so that's neat. Now, I've always said that Requiem for a Dream is a really good movie, but I will never, ever watch it again. Never. Same goes for Slumdog Millionaire. It's a good movie (mind you, I didn't say really good...the directing is too messed up for that), but I will never, ever watch it again. If I want to get really depressed, I'll just look at my bank account. I think it's funny that the movie review on that poster is "the feel-good movie of the decade." Yeah, ok, you feel good at the end when he gets the girl and he gets the money. But, to me, it didn't make up for the previous hour and 40 minutes of down-trodden, life-is-crappy, story.

The Golden Compass - Phillip Pullman

Its funny how there are some book reviews that I can't wait to write because I've got a lot to say about the book. Then there are others that I try to put off because I don't have much to say or because the books were so good that I can't find the right stuff to say. But now, for the first time, I completely forgot all about writing this book review. Well, it's not my fault; it just wasn't a hugely memorable book.

I wonder if I'm losing my ability to read children's books. I devoured Harry Potter books when they came out, but that was a while ago, I guess. But reading this book was just not very fun, and it bordered on being pretty boring.

The story takes place on an alternate universe (see, it sounds very Star Trek already, it should have been awesome). In this universe, a human's conscience/soul/imaginary friend/what have you, personifies itself in the shape of an animal (known as a daemon) that is intimately and innately bound to its human. Apparently Pullman got this concept from paintings such as Leonardo Da Vinci’s “Lady with an Ermine,” Giovanni Battista Tiepolo's "Young Lady with a Parrot," and Hans Holbein the Younger's "Lady with a Squirrel," which featured women holding animals. It's not a bad idea and Pullman develops the human/daemon relationship fairly well (though, logistically, I find it impossible to conceive of 6 billion plus animals following 6 billion plus humans around all the time, in the market, at work, in the bathroom, during a one-night stand; what do the daemons do then, what do they eat, what if you don't like your daemon…). Anyway, this alternate universe also features talking armored bears, witches, some ghoulish flying thing named a cliff-ghast, and there are possibly a few other weird creatures in there that I don’t remember.

The story centers on 12-year-old Lyra Belacqua and the sudden dramatic changes that take place in her life when a mysterious group of people start kidnapping children. Sometime prior to embarking on her adventure, and before delving into what passes for this book’s plot, she receives the golden compass, which is like a Ouija board that tells you the truth when you ask it a question (and, possibly, it conjures up the image of that girl that drowned in the lake down the road that a friend of a friend heard someone talk about ages ago). The fact that Lyra can read this compass makes her very very special but, true to the children’s book mystery genre, we don’t find out why, at least not in this book.

Anyway, Lyra sets out to find out what’s happening to the missing children, and eventually she sets out with others to rescue them, and then she finds out what’s happening to them, and then other stuff happens because there needs to be a sequel to this book. What happens to the children is the only thing this plot has going for it so I won’t divulge the details. It’s hard to briefly describe the plot of this book because there are a ton of side plots: Lyra’s parents, the armored bear’s civil war, the witches’ civil war, the nature of Dust (a mysterious particle that people are keen to research regardless of the cost), and the evil machinations of organized religion.

I didn’t mind the personification of organized religion as a dictatorial, conniving, unscrupulous institution. It’s not new. But the dwelling on it and the lengthy discussions on original sin and the explanations on the religious hierarchy and the details on the different political groups was a bit of overkill. I wonder how many kids are able to waddle through all that and keep reading. It just felt like a lot of adult content thrown in there (and by that I don’t mean that it should be rated PG-13 for mild language and suggestive scenes, I mean that it’s like reading a newspaper article about Hamas and Fatah: interesting but somber).

But, I will admit, I did not completely hate this book. I didn’t even mildly hate it. It was all right. Not very memorable and a bit too serious for a children’s story, but set in an interesting alternate world with likable characters (particularly Lyra and the main armored bear).

Oh, and also, the audiobook version is excellent. This is probably why I kept going with the book, and the only reason I got the second book. The story is narrated by Phillip Pullman himself, but all the characters are read by actors. All the voices are great (the voice of Iorek, the armored bear, I had hoped would be different, more like Michael Clark Duncan in The Green Mile, but instead it’s more like Treebeard in The Two Towers…just wrong). My favorite was the voice of Mrs. Coulter, the story’s villain. She sounds very sweet and lovely and innocent and then she sounds like a complete cow, it works so well.