Fiction: The Great Gatsby, by F. Scott Fitzgerald

Re-read. Our February challenge book.

Dad comments that he always enjoys it when he’s reading it, but later he never remembers what it was about: a year from now he’ll think: “What was the plot of the Great Gatsby? I know it’s in the ’20s…” My friend Cathy loves this book…but she always teaches it to her high schoolers every year–the plot would definitely stay in your memory if you were doing that! 🙂

It’s well written, nice voice, really easy to pick up and read, has a nice conversational tone, Nick is really likable. But doesn’t necessarily take you somewhere. Similar to Austen it has that veneer of society being worthwhile. Very cool tone to it.

Easy to forget the hollowness in Gatsby–it’s so much all show. All the characters are so shallow, see, for example, Gatsby putting up a huge facade to chase this really childish illusion of the perfect romance, the kind of thing you believe when you’re 12. Everybody’s living a fake life, cruising along as if, if they keep moving, nothing’s going to catch with up them. Even Nick’s psuedo relationship with the tennis player. She’s a real slippery character.

Dad remembered the movie from 40 years ago – just a clunker. Robert Redford played Gatbsy, Sam Waterston played Nick – it was a huge flop.

A very Midwestern exchange:
Me: I found all the MN stuff really surprising. didn’t remember that at all.
Dad: The Great Gatsby is like War & Peace to Minnesotans. Once heard a professor at a conference in Minnesota being asked how wonderful it was and he gave a very careful answer: “Well, you know it’s one of those essential works of a period where, in America, you just can’t approach the ’20s without reading the Great Gatsby” i.e., worth reading for its picture of a time and place, but not putting it up with the great novels.

Verdict: Thumbs up for an enjoyable easy read, but would not appear on our Greatest Hits list.

Fiction: A Study in Scarlet, by Arthur Conan Doyle

Re-read. Our January challenge book.

Having both seen the movie and, while agreeing that it is a decent action flick, both agreeing that it really wasn’t our Sherlock Holmes, it seemed like a good time to go back for a re-read, this being the very first SH book (and ACD wasn’t even sure he was going to continue with Holmes–this could have been the only one!!).

Interesting to go back and read — we all come to it knowing the character already, whether through RDJ or Basil Rathbone, or memories of other stories… Fun watching Holmes and Watson bond on the page in front of you. Always think back on these as “Holmes stories” but in re-reading, really realize how much of the OTHER story you get here: the Westward expansion story, the spooky cult aspect of the Mormon setting, the hero who becomes an anti-hero–he becomes such a different person, an unstoppable avenger, and his heartbreak defines the rest of his life. You’re almost sad when Holmes catches him; the people he murdered deserved it!!

Full of dark sharp bitter elements, this is not a POP book. The hero goes down. In memory, you often soften Holmes a bit; you meet him here again as acerbic, rougher, dismissive (of Watson, among others), boxing. Watson always comes off a bit of a bumbler in the Rathbone films–really he’s “normal” right? He’s the “us” or “you” in these stories.

As with other Holmes’ stories, the everpresent suggestion of a ghost / pushed aside by Holmes who is always the one pointing out the physical evidence. Thought this was a weakness of the RDJ film as well–seemed like Holmes was falling for the mystical a bit too much.

According to an article in the Smithsonian (awhile back), Holmes was partly based on a doctor ACD knew and the bohemian / nonconformist aspect was based on Oscar Wilde (note that Dorian Gray and Study in Scarlet were put out by the same publisher). Holyroyd thinks the actor Henry Irving was one of influences for the illustrations of Holmes (haunted police courts, played lurid characters on stage).

Favorite new (to me) expression I had to ask Dad to define: “sere and yellow” = late autumn (here, of life).

Verdict: thumbs up from both Girl and Dad.

DadReaction: Cop Out!

Hilarious!! Tracy Morgan interrogates a suspect using nothing but rapid-fire movie quotes. Very tough woman victim in it, too–keeps screaming at the bad guys in Spanish no matter what they do to her. Willis staring at the insane partner he has is worth the price of admission.

EW saying Smith’s direction is flat-footed is SO off-base!!!! Some great visual jokes, lots of funny stuff. Also, EW is off-base just as badly when it talks about the (absent) racial tension!!!! It wasn’t about that!!!!!! COULD NOT believe Gleiberman’s review.

Highly Recommended.

So the top of my list right now!!

Family(minusGirl)Reaction: Lovely Bones

I didn’t go see this b/c of an irritation I had with the book. Reading how much my parents liked it made me decide to check out showtimes…and it’s already left Chicago completely. Must not have done that well, but as you can read below, they thought it was great.

DadReaction: Did not read book. Thought it sounded too creepy. Must say though: this movie is transcendent. You’re really upset at the start and it takes you on a journey of reconciliation that’s so odd, so unusual–I thought, anyway–i just don’t get why only Tucci got a nomination (for a NOTHING part). Peter Jackson must wonder what he has to do anymore. I mean, King Kong was the movie of the year when IT came out. Not that this one is tops, but c’mon, guys, it’s so well done, so unusual, so powerful, it deserves a nod. A lot of the movie was the kid, though–really good casting. But everybody was good.

MomReaction: Your Dad would put it in the top 10 of the year. I liked the way it used horror movie techniques, music that makes you think something is going on, anticipation, really well and it was never a trick, something did happen. I also thought that you went from something that tore your heart out and then saw redemption–hard won. The family did get back to being able to love each other and live, even though something terrible had happened. And the bad guy was identified and died in a very fitting way. The between world was very interesting too.

This movie was complete. It expressed real pain and hurt as well as love, abiding love. And it had a depth that nothing else I saw this year had. So, much as I loved Julie and Julia and Avatar and Inglorious Bastards, I think this had everything they had and more. It was at a completely different level. I think it was too bad only Stanley Tucci got nominated. Although it would be fair to call this an ensemble. Peter Jackson deserved a nomination.

And the setting/background, and special effects ( maybe the category was visual effects) deserved mention in nomination. Your dad just mentioned adapted screenplay as well. Mark Wahlberg was as good as I’ve ever seen him, lots of emotional depth and even a kind of beauty. Maybe even Susan Sarandon as best supporting actress.

DadReaction: Nostromo, by Joseph Conrad

Our November challenge book. I had to leave Dad in the lurch on this one, I just had too much school work in November (with finals in the beginning of December) to undertake this one.

Dad: It was harder to get into than I expected / I remembered really liking Conrad. It was one of those sort of prescient things that could be so easily adapted: a South American country gets sucked into the capitalism of the West, because of its resources. Of course, this starts warping the society there; you’re watching it happen.

It’s an interestingly written book: always taking some weird perspective, lots of flashbacks, leaving things behind. You know ahead of time who makes it and who doesn’t, because he tells you throughout the text. Odd hero as well: he won’t marry the right chick / her dad kills him. Very odd ending for a book about something else.

Worth it but I did have to flog through it.

YA/Fiction: The White Darkness, by Geraldine McCaughrean

Our challenge book for October. I can’t remember what led us to pick this book; I know we (or I) read about it somewhere.

We both LOVED it. It doesn’t hurt that we’re both South Pole/Antarctic junkies and have already read lots of books on the topic/subject/area (including great books by Sara Wheeler! “Terra Incognita” and “Cherry”).

Sym is so smart and fantastically imaginative. It’s one of those books that, rather than having an unreliable narrator, it’s a narrator who doesn’t know everything but as she figures it out, the revelations start coming out fast and crazy and the whole world changes before your eyes. Her obsession with Captain Titus Oates is both humorous and touching.

There’s some really sad stuff and some really amazing stuff and you are just ROOTING for certain things to happen…

Fantastic.

DadReaction: The Time Traveller’s Wife

Note he has not read the book (yet); I have not seen the movie. I LOVELOVEDLOVED the book. Which is why we will be reading it in our challenge this year.

Really good. Sad, sad, sad, but you knew that. One of the first movies this year in which I bought the romance–but I REALLY bought it. Eric and Rachel are so super together. Really tears your heart out. And the time stuff is handled so well–you feel like you’ve known these two for YEARS.

Dad’s and My Reading Challenge for 2010 [Updated]

We have decided to do re-reads this year (or each book will be a re-read for at least one of us).

January: “A Study in Scarlet” by Arthur Conan Doyle

February: “The Great Gatsby” by F. Scott Fitzgerald

March: “Rebel Angels” by Robertson Davies

April: “Possession” by A.S. Byatt

May: “The Fool’s Progress” by Edward Abbey (new to me)

June: “The Time Traveler’s Wife” by Audrey Niffenegger (new to Dad)

July: “Moby Dick” by Herman Melville

August & September: “His Dark Materials” (the trilogy) by Philip Pullman

October: “Sabbath’s Theater” by Philip Roth

November: “The Old Devils” by Kingsley Amis (new to me)

December: “King Hereafter” by Dorothy Dunnett (new to Dad)

Our 2009 and 2008 lists.

DadReaction: Away We Go

Hilarious friends they had–yet there was a real ring of truth in lots of the scenes. JK and MR I thought were really good –and good together. (That first sex scene was too much for the people sitting in front of us though: they stood up and stomped out.)

I liked it too. Although I have a quibble with one bit of it that I didn’t mention there. Maybe I’ll write about it later.