Carolyn's comments

Carolyn's comments from the Glens Falls (NY) Online Book Discussion Group group.

Note: Carolyn is no longer a member of this group.

Yes, I wouldn't call Hancock a thriller at all - more a cross between comedy, drama, and action/adventure.

Like Jim said, the hero Hancock is a drunk with superpowers, so when he bothers to help someone, it is without thinking through the consequences (or of a better way to accomplish the same goal.)
A PR exec finds Hancock and tries to convince him that it's in his best interest to change his ways so that he can be a role-model superhero.

Some funny, some drama, some action and surprises ensue.
Won't say anything else, don't want to ruin it for you, but it's an interesting movie and worth watching.

The Incredibles was very good, I highly recommend it. = )

Wellllll, I wouldn't describe it as a 'thriller' necessarily.
The narrator is Dr Impossible and the book is full of his recollections and memories of events, but it is much more comedic than a thriller - in the same way that Hancock was. = )
At the end of the story you're feeling for Dr Impossible and his uphill battle - which fits nicely with all the attempts of the Joker, the Penguin, etc in their repeated attempts to triumph over Batman (yet always destined to fail.) Ever see the movie "The Incredibles"? Reminds me quite a bit of the evil genius/bad guy from that movie...
I do recommend the book, I enjoyed it!

Hancock was enjoyable - not great, and the ending was a mess, but definitely an interesting 'take' on the superhero genre.

The day after we saw Hancock, I started reading Soon I Will Be Invincible, which was quite good - it's narrator is the evil super genius trying to achieve world domination. A strangely sympathic character. Definitely a good chaser to seeing Hancock!

From the Brooklyn Arden blog, a rap based on the song "Baby Got Back" by Sir MixALot: "Baby Got Book"
Very funny!
Read it here:
http://chavelaque.blogspot.com/2008/04/b...

A light moment for your day! = )

Calendar Girls was a wonderful movie!
Sort of a sleeper like The Full Monty, got lots of attention because the concept of all of the ladies posing 'nude' (although nothing untoward shows in any of the pics.)
Even better though, because it is based on a true story. I don't remember them as doing the fundraiser for the hospital, it was for the medical expenses of one of the members or her husband, I believe.
Either way, very enjoyable, I recommend it if you haven't seen it. = )

I'm with you Jackie! I have to know something about the book, even if it's by a favorite author, in order to read it.

Because of GR, my TBR list is over 1K books now, and growing! I have to stop surfing the shelves at the library and just request books from my list for a while! = )

Then I just need an extra couple of hours in the day to do some serious reading to catch up on the list!

Re: the Narnia books. I loved them, read them all as a tween and though I was raised Catholic, I have to say that I don't see the religious symbolism that everyone else does. I mean, once someone spells out what they see, I can say, ok, I can see what you're saying, but I don't think that is what/how they were written, it is the interpretation of that by literary critics.

I think that there are some basic symbols that you can point to and parallel to many different myths/religions (many of which pre-date Christianity). Personally, I don't see a strong religious content in any of the books, I just see a strongly written *fantasy* world.

Reminds me of AP English in high school (one of the best teachers I have ever had), discussing Lord Jim, or Heart of Darkness, or Othello, the teacher asked us what we thought certain passages meant or referred to. She never dissed our opinions, even if they were different from the prevailing notions of what the author 'meant' that popular literary dissection had determined it to be.

What I learned from her method over all, is that if you ask me what the prevailing thought is about such-and-such, I can tell you that, but if you ask me my opinion, that may be totally different. And you know what? - my opinion (if well constructed) is just as valid as all these so-called "expert's" opinions.

Unless the author wrote some kind of preface/afterword or essay about their writing and actually flat-out stated it, in which case all the literary dissection is really moot. In this case, the wikipedia article quotes a Lewis statement that he didn't write it to 'teach' Christianity - see quote here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chronic...

It is also interesting to note, that although only the supposedly Christian influences are debated and discussed ad nauseum, "the series [also:] borrows characters and ideas from Greek and Roman mythology, as well as from traditional British and Irish fairy tales." source: wikipedia.com

Just my 2 cents... = )

Yes, I like that group!
Sometimes I dip into it just to see if I can answer anyone's queries, but usually they've been answered already. = )
Thanks for posting the link!

Sending good thoughts (and warm ones!) your way Jim - hope things improve quickly!

Carolyn