Healthy Influence Blog

communication for a change

Archive for the 'Reviews' Category

Review - Romance and Cigarettes, the movie

11th April 2008

If you like quirky, independent movies, please see “Romance and Cigarettes,” written and directed by John Turturro. I found this to be one of the best “small” movies I’ve ever seen in my life. Turturro uses musical numbers featuring song and dance with his actors in a most unusual, entertaining, and compelling fashion. I have no idea why this movie didn’t get more buzz.

It is quirky. Independent. You know, like “Royal Tennenbaums” or “Swingers” or “Snatch” or gee whiz, I’d have to go to my Netflix account. If you don’t like this weird movies, then “Romance and Cigarettes” is probably not for you. James Gandolfini (the “Sopranos” guy) does a song and dance number in this movie that breaks your heart.

Did you know that when a woman bends over, a man sees a jelly donut?

Or . . .

. . . there are two things that a man should be able to do: be romantic and smoke his brains out.

If those observations don’t interest you then the movie probably isn’t worth your time.

Otherwise . . .

Posted in Reviews | No Comments »

Off Blog Post - Letter to the Editor of the Wall Street Journal

7th March 2008

Quoting the immortal Howard Beal, “I’m made as hell and I’m not going to take this anymore.” The WSJ represents a standard of writing quality that is unexceeded today, yet is plagued with one particular idiomatic earnestness that turns me purple. From today’s Journal, let me observe from a story about John McCain and Barack Obama:

“He could stop playing politics with the Federal Election Commission in a way that could hamper John McCain’s campaign against, well, Mr. Obama.”

I have no idea which bright writer first drank from that “well” (perhaps it goes back to F. Scott Fitzgerald?), but it has become cliché and rivals “at the end of the day . . .” in the Pantheon of past-their-prime grammatical metaphors (or should I say, “memes?”). I came of age in the 1960s and can still watch film of hippies doing that zombie dance, but if I find yet another “well” in a WSJ story I’ll be forced to have another vodka, not gin, martini or else visit a competitor.

I propose that the editors of the Journal employ a dreaded, familiar, but potentially effective device to curtail this practice. Impose a 500 word penalty on any writer who uses YA”W”. The YA”W” Tariff would restore the standards of excellence, imagination, and, well, greatness, we’ve all grown to associate with the Journal.

Truly,

Steve Booth-Butterfield
Morgantown, WV

Posted in Reviews | No Comments »

Book Review - The Great Gatsby and Why We Read It Differently

6th March 2008

“The Great Gatsby” is a difficult novel that successfully polarizes readers, especially ones who take it seriously. That marks great literature. When serious readers react oppositely to the same work, you know you are looking at good, if not great, art. Please note, too, that the range of reviews today mirrors the range of reviews that greeted this book when it arrived new in bookstores over 80 years ago. You can easily search those then-current reviews on the Internet for your own amusement and instruction and once again be surprised over how little people change. For some of us, “The Great Gatsby” is a wonder, while it leaves others wondering at us.

To describe briefly the novel: Set in the American 1920s at the height of a stock market boom in the Roaring Twenties, this novel is narrated by Nick Carraway, a wealthy, young Ivy League graduate who’s learning the bond business on Wall Street. Nick tells us about his life at the time as it connects with a second cousin, Daisy Buchanan, from Louisville, who is married to the fabulously and formidably wealthy Tom Buchanan. Tom and Nick schooled together at Yale where Nick had an uneasy relationship with the larger, wealthier, and crueler Tom Buchanan. The story unfolds with Nick, Daisy, Tom, and an attractive female golf pro, Jordan Baker, out on the glistening lawns of the wealthy sections of Long Island. Fold in Tom’s mistress, Myrtle Wilson and her clueless, but devoted husband, George, and we have a strong story, but nothing about this Gatsby guy. Only when we are well into the story do we hear about the title character, Jay Gatsby, and he is slowly brought into plot and character development. Gatsby has been driving this novel from the beginning, but we don’t know that. We learn in subtle, indirect fashion that Daisy and Gatsby have a mutual past that neither our narrator, Nick, nor her husband, Tom, discern or know. And in that past connection we grasp the proximate, animating force of the novel: Gatsby loved Daisy then and loves her now. The novel unfolds as Daisy learns that Gatsby owns a mansion across the bay from her estate. The old lovers cross paths again – one forcing the reunion, the other gliding into it – and we have all the action that will drive the remainder of the novel. I reveal nothing more and observe: The novel is simple and obvious, a story of wealthy, sophisticated people in boom times, with a narrator watching a married couple that has romantic rivals.

The basic plot and character in part explain why serious readers can be so seriously divided over “The Great Gatsby.” Virtually everyone who dislikes the novel finds it to be simplistic, boring, and obvious. Gee whiz, let’s try to get interested in people who have everything in life yet have trouble doing anything in life well. Tom and Daisy have it all, yet are stupid, shallow, and thoughtless people. Gatsby at least strives for something better and while he achieves great wealth, notoriety, and popularity, he, too, suffers from problems that should be easy to solve given his talents and resources. Jordan Baker, the female golf pro, is successful, famous, and attractive, but alas she can’t make her life work. And, Nick, our narrator, seems to observe everything well, except for himself. All in all, we have a cast of characters who warrant scorn, dismissal, and contempt.

And yet, other serious readers see Gatsby as a great novel, a work of art. How?

Start first with a quality that almost all serious readers notice and admire: The writing. Fitzgerald writes romantic sentences with a Hemingway edge. His words are at once beautiful and descriptive. Even readers who overall disparage the book, heed the writing, and marvel at it. The voice is unique, esthetic, and sharp. Gatsby is Fitzgerald’s finest writing and certainly some of the best writing in English anytime. But writing skill alone will not save this book for some serious readers.

What earns this disdain, I think, is found in the deceptive simplicity of the book. At a genuine level of analysis the story is rather easy to grasp, understand, and evaluate. Especially if you are reading this book under requirement as it appears many students experience, the psychological demands of the classroom (it’s required, a specific timeline, deadlines for completing various chapters, assignments in class or for homework on the book, etc.) I think lead many readers into the worst outcome for a reading class – you read to survive the course rather than for your own simple entertainment and education. Under these conditions, the obvious, simple, and designed elements of “The Great Gatsby” attract immediate attention in the short term demands of required reading and lead some readers to obvious, simple, and designed conclusions about the book. If you’ve “had” to read Gatsby, give it a year, and try once again. It’s not a maturity issue. It’s a motivation issue: Read it for yourself on your own terms.

If you read for yourself, you can reflect on complexities in the book. Realize first that Fitzgerald writes differently about Tom and Daisy than he does for Nick or Jordan Baker, or the minor, but important characters like Myrtle and George Wilson, but most especially for Gatsby. With Tom and Daisy, Fitzgerald tends to offer direct and immediate observations of their behavior and thoughts as if he is looking them right now with a God’s eye view and telling us about them. He really gets under the skin with Tom and Daisy. With Gatsby, by contrast, most of the writing is a narrative recounting of the past that is cloudy, perhaps misremembered, and operates as description with little interpretation or with contradiction from an unreliable narrator (Nick). This makes the characters of Tom and Daisy seem like high quality photos while Gatsby comes off more like a portrait done by an Impressionist painter: Clearly a portrait, but with shadows and no sharp edges. Tom and Daisy are objects. Gatsby is all subject and he becomes a Rorschach test allowing us to project ourselves onto him.

Next, you need to be alert to absolutely crucial plot actions that are briefly presented and can be easily missed. The climatic action of the story in particular requires the reader to do a lot of work and keep certain actions in mind through a long series of character reactions and developments. Recall the scene late in the book that takes place in a suite at the Plaza Hotel. Who’s in the scene? What do they say to each other? How are relationship conflicts resolved? Then, the characters move rapidly out of the Plaza Hotel and drive back to West and East Egg in separate cars. How do those car rides manifest behaviorally the relationship conflicts resolved earlier in the Hotel? Stated another way, in the Hotel we hear conflict and resolution. From the car rides we see how that conflict and resolution play out in action. This sequence is the ultimate plot point for the novel that drives interpretation. You need to read it carefully.

Finally, you need to relate what we hear and see regarding relationship conflict and resolution with the interpretation and understanding of Jay Gatsby. You’ll recall that Tom and Daisy are bright, detailed, and sharp characters while Gatsby is vague, shadowed, and blurry. You can try to understand Gatsby through the events that occur following the car rides back to the Eggs. For you see, the whole point of the book is in what happens to Gatsby and what happens to Gatsby is caused by his character. (So, Fitzgerald exemplifies that maxim that all writers steal and that good writers steal from the best which in this case is Fitzgerald stealing from Heraclitus!)

For many people the basic theme of “The Great Gatsby” is this: Be careful what you wish for. I think at a simple level of analysis this is true. At a deeper level (one that follows my suggestions above) I would refine that theme into this: Be careful what you aspire to. For me, this novel is a great cautionary meditation on the American Dream and its less pleasant possibilities. In positive form, the American Dream is that you can be more than you started with. That explains in part why this book is often required for younger readers in high school or college who are taking their first real steps toward realizing their own American Dream. Fitzgerald offers Gatsby as a caution to those of us who think that aspiration past our beginnings is a good thing, a desirable thing, and the point of ambition. Everyone in this novel aspires to be more than they seem to be or who they are. Everyone in this novel suffers loss, failure, or disaster. No one in this novel leaves with any awareness of why they failed. Yet most of the characters can be described as either great challengers to the American Dream or else already living the American Dream. How is it possible for such failure to occur?

In my eyes, the answer is found in the last sentence of the novel: “So we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.” Aspiration moves “against the current.” Ambition motivates us not to a positive manifestation of the Dream, with the Dream as the Vision or Goal of one’s life, but rather ambition motivates us to a negative manifestation of the Dream, with Dream as Fantasy or Psychosis or UnReality. And for those of us who aspire, we will find ourselves “borne back ceaselessly into the past” a modern Sisyphus doomed to push the stone uphill to the crest only to see it roll down to the valley every time.

That is a soul-chilling thought. Isn’t this kind of ambition a good thing? Don’t all good parents aspire for their children to aspire? Doesn’t it all fall down if we don’t aspire? It is not that anyone in the novel aspires badly or stupidly or illegally, but rather that they aspire at all is the root and branch of their failure. Here, “The Great Gatsby” argues that it is ambition itself that will cause people to fail and worse still to fail without insight and repair, for as long as you continue to aspire you will continue to fail.

This is an interesting and heuristic interpretation. First, it breaks free of the simple and obvious surface appearances and misdirections that divert some readers: It’s the 1920s and irrelevant; it’s about a bunch of spoiled white folks; it’s about the vita loca. Clearly, there’s a lot more going on here and it requires careful, thoughtful reading and reflection. Second, it explains why Gatsby is still appealing to so many people even after 80 years. It turns out that we are still living in a Modern age and the current Postmodern foolishness is explained by the past: Gatsby and Tom and Daisy and Nick would call themselves Postmodern today. The American Dream here is the defining element of Modernism and the fact that we’re still aspiring the same old way like Jay Gatsby connects with us at a deep level. Third, it reinforces the perceived greatness of the novel that many readers see and continue to see. This is not only a well written, well structured, pretty novel, it also addresses eternal human nature and the repetitive futility we often experience in life. Gatsby is dramatic philosophy, a better written Platonic dialog.

Or so I think today. I’ve been reading and rereading “The Great Gatsby” for 35 years and my perception of it changes like I’m rolling a diamond in bright light every new reading. I haven’t found many books that warrant or bear that kind of continuing examination.

Posted in Reviews | No Comments »

Review: the Kindle from Amazon.com

3rd December 2007

I’m both a Constant and Common Reader since childhood. Cereal boxes, mattress tags, software licenses, whatever, if it’s Logos it grabs me. One of the few regrets in my life has been the one time I sold a bunch of my books at a moving sale to save some hassle. I love reading.

When I saw the offer for Amazon’s Kindle e-reader, I jumped on it without hesitation, ordering one the first morning it was available. Now after a couple of weeks use, I’ll share my experience.

Get one.

If you love words, text, and reading, get one.

If you love tech gadgets and the New New Thing, don’t get one. The Kindle is not a slicky toy like the iPhone. If you’ve been reading anything about the Kindle you’ve probably encountered techie reviews that stomp the device on a variety of gearhead criteria. They are all correct, true, and accurate criticisms - if you are a gearhead and not a reader.

The Kindle renders beautiful, easy to read text on a slightly greybrown background with virtually no glare. It is lightweight (11 ounces) with a good battery that will last several hours of continuous use. It is easy to download files onto the Kindle. You can buy books from Amazon in a proprietary format so that copyright issues are easier to enforce. You can download txt, doc, html, jpg, and mp3 files without problem. In other words, it is an excellent e-reader.

Now, the extras.

The Kindle is on a wireless network roughly equivalent to the national cell phone network. With the wireless connection you can access the Amazon website, purchase, and download books. You can also surf the Web with a basic browser function. Some websites, especially one that focus on words rather than sounds or images or video or flash or those other attention toys, don’t render well. But, if the website focuses on words and simple navigation, you can access the website. You can also do basic emailing through services like Google or Yahoo. (Kindle employs an effective built in key pad that is quite functional for its size.) And, you don’t pay any fee for the wireless use.

A couple of other points I’ve not seen in other reviews.

First, the Kindle creates a new kind of just folks marketplace. Through the device you can access the web to buy Amazon products instantly. Some of the products, the e-books, you can not only buy instantly, but receive instantly. Others, require waiting, like anything else on the Amazon website or other like LL Bean.

Second, there’s no Microsoft in any of this. So what? There’s now a device that combines hardware, software, good and services, networks, and buyers and sellers in real time that has nothing to do with Microsoft.

If you like words and the Web get it:

http://www.amazon.com

Posted in Reviews | Comments Off

Book Review: Philip Rieff, “Charisma”

7th April 2007

“Charisma” and Philip Rieff are not for everyone or for most. If you have not read widely, especially in the Bible, and the postmodern precursors like Freud, Nietzsche, or Weber then “Charisma” will likely strike you as an academic bore.

Rieff accomplishes what seems to be a postmodern impossibility: thinking “intellectually” about the Bible and theology. By “intellectually” I mean that secular, academic, scientific perspective of conceptualization, rationalization, and articulation of ideas that is foundational in higher education and “elite” groups. It’s what professors and public intellectuals do. Within that class of people, the Bible and theology are most typically viewed as intellectual deadends of proven unworth that appeal to sweaty snakehandlers under the tent on a hot August night. Rieff demonstrates that it is possible and interesting to think like an “intellectual” about Biblical and theological concepts in much the same way he did with his recent work, “Sacred Order,” reviewed earlier on my Blog.

“Charisma” traces the meaning of the term, “charisma,” from its original theological roots to its current postmodern corrupted state, explaining along the way how this corruption occurred (primarily through the writings of the postmodern precursors like Weber), but more importantly, the intellectual, moral, and cultural implications of this corruption. While we live in the postmodern Humpty Dumpty world where words mean whatever we chose them to mean, Rieff explicates “charisma” as a religiously derived term that springs from God and His Authority and then observes how the Humpty Dumpty changes in meaning that have occurred in the past 150 years have transformed the term into the postmodern foolishness of “charisma” as something that George Clooney, Madonna, and the latest American Idol possess. Please consider briefly the implication behind “charisma” as an element of fame versus “charisma” as the force of God’s authority. If this is not an interesting or challenging comparison, you are not curious how this change in meaning developed, and you don’t see any cultural or moral implications in the shift, then this book is not for you.

One appealing element of “Charisma” is that Philip Rieff has actually read the Bible and can pass the standard true-false test on its content. He continually demonstrates the bad misreadings of that text by writers like Weber and Freud who clearly read the Bible selectively (or more charitably with the map of misreading as described by Professor Bloom) in their attempts to discredit that theology and inflate their proposed substitutes. It’s one thing to reject a perspective because you simply disagree with it, but it’s another thing to reject it through misreading. As someone who was trained in the postmodern university, it is with considerable embarassment that I realize how much of the postmodern criticism of religion I accepted without reading the footnotes in that criticism. Freud makes a lot more sense when you uncritically accept his view of the Bible. If you know the Bible, Freud becomes just an another intellectual on the make trying to push his theory.

As I noted in my review of “Sacred Order” I’ve been a constant reader for over 40 years. I found “Sacred Order” to be one of the strongest, most interesting, and compelling books I’ve read. I see “Charisma” in the same light. This is a great book and worthy of reading, rereading, and reflection.

And, there awaits publication of a third volume in this series!

Posted in Reviews | Comments Off

Book Review: Philip Rieff, “Sacred Order”

7th April 2007

This is one of the best books I’ve read in over 40 years of being a Common Reader. My enthusiasm for it doubtless colors my review, but even with my cheerleading, there still must be a lot of there, there.

If you have not read widely and thought a lot about that reading, you probably will not enjoy or appreciate this book. And, chances are, that if you are a widely read person, you still probably wouldn’t like this book. Philip Rieff draws upon a lifetime of reading and reflection from sources as diverse as the Bible, Freud, Nietzsche, Joyce, postmodernists, and images from art (Michaelangelo to Duchamp) and film (Kind Hearts and Coronets to Zelig) and develops three cultures (fate, faith, and fiction) as means of understanding life and text. As someone who lived through the postmodern temper tantrum at the university, I am amazed at Rieff’s accomplishment. His work takes the wild, destructive postmodern methods and puts them in a small bottle for anyone’s consideration.

I further suspect that you would like this book the stronger your faith in God. And that is a very weird outcome for a literary approach. Thomas Aquinas would probably like this book. So would Plato. Derrida, Foucault, and the postmoderns would not. Let me put this another way. Rieff’s approach allows a well educated reader to also be faithful to God. Postmoderns think that this is impossible.

At the end: God was never dead.

Philip Rieff is amazing and this is a great book.

Posted in Reviews | Comments Off