|
|
|
This is a nicely done oral history of MTV up through the end of the era in which it actually played music videos.
|
|
|
To my surprise, this is not the book I read many times as a child. That book was a third person narrative, and the individual stories were, for the most part, of a slightly later generation of players.
Nevertheless, this book was well worth the time....moreTo my surprise, this is not the book I read many times as a child. That book was a third person narrative, and the individual stories were, for the most part, of a slightly later generation of players.
Nevertheless, this book was well worth the time. It consists of nearly 50 "as told to" tales, mostly told to John P. Carmichael, a Chicago sports writer. All of these were written in the '40s, and the featured players stretch back to the infancy of modern Major League baseball--the first two decades of the 20th Century. Many of those players were dead by the time I was a child reading about baseball, in the late '50s and early '60s, so it's fascinating to hear their voices in this book. If you are a baseball fan and know the sport's history, most of the names will be familiar, although some only vaguely so.
The narratives themselves are fairly straightforward when describing the particular game. The real value of this book comes in the personal style of some of the narrators, the descriptions of the atmosphere, the fans, the other players, etc. Interestingly, most of the games which players chose to describe as their greatest day were not the games in which their personal exploits represented great achievement; often, the player's own performance in the game was modest. For the most part, the games chosen are memorable to these players because of their significance--pennant clinching games, World Series winning games, a player's first game in the majors or a critical win. Their greatest days are team victories.(less)
|
|
|
This is one instance where the movie is significantly superior to the book. My hat is off to Phil Alden Robinson, who had the vision to turn a slightly awkward and clumsily written and plotted book into an extremely moving film. In a number of way...moreThis is one instance where the movie is significantly superior to the book. My hat is off to Phil Alden Robinson, who had the vision to turn a slightly awkward and clumsily written and plotted book into an extremely moving film. In a number of ways, the changes made in the film adaptation are inspired, improving the story.
Kinsella's style is somewhat clunky, and the narrator never really connects for me. In an odd way, knowing the movie made me like the book more than I think I would have.(less)
|
|
|
Something of a disappointment. Franzen's novel is, at least in part, about freedom and its consequences. To a large extent, it's about people who work to be free of their families, or at least try to do so, since his point is that the ties of famil...moreSomething of a disappointment. Franzen's novel is, at least in part, about freedom and its consequences. To a large extent, it's about people who work to be free of their families, or at least try to do so, since his point is that the ties of family are extremely strong and, whether we know it or not, they continue to work on us throughout our lives.
As always with Franzen, the writing is smooth and easy to read. However, for the most part, the characters didn't seem realistic to me The ending seemed more Anne Tylerish than Franzenish.(less)
|
|
|
|
|
This is an enjoyable read. Kahn, best known for The Boys of Summer (which is a baseball classic) writes fluidly, with only the occasional awkwardness. The following are my problems with the book: In places it's a bit repetitive; it focuses too much...moreThis is an enjoyable read. Kahn, best known for The Boys of Summer (which is a baseball classic) writes fluidly, with only the occasional awkwardness. The following are my problems with the book: In places it's a bit repetitive; it focuses too much on the press and its relationship with the players; some of its asides and digressions seem like filler to me; it's occasionally sloppy factually; and perhaps most significant to me, I don't think there is enough attention paid to the on-field action. Obviously, the antics of Billy Martin, Steinbrenner, Reggie Jackson et al. which generated the controversies and are really the reason for this book, are interesting. But all of that would be of little interest but for the fact that the Yankees in 1978 staged one of the great comebacks of all time. Kahn gives win-loss totals at various points, but provides no real feel for the play of the team, particularly during the final month or so of the season when the Yankees gained so much ground. And the only player whose season-long play we get any sense of is Ron Guidry. We get no sense as to what kind of season other players--Mickey Rivers, Chambliss, Roy White, Figueroa, etc.--had or whether there is any consistent pattern to the team's play during the year. What sort of year did Greg Nettles have? Ed Figueroa won 20 games that year for the Yankees, a terrific accomplishment, and yet it goes unmentioned by Kahn.
The book has the feel of having been dashed off rather quickly in order to fulfill a contractual commitment or meet a deadline.(less)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not one of Perrotta's better efforts. In this novel, he takes a premise--that the "Rapture" has come and resulted in the disappearance of millions around the world, but it has taken good people, bad people, religious and non-religious, Christians an...moreNot one of Perrotta's better efforts. In this novel, he takes a premise--that the "Rapture" has come and resulted in the disappearance of millions around the world, but it has taken good people, bad people, religious and non-religious, Christians and non-Christians--and explores what the reactions of people in a small town in the Northeast U.S. might be. It's an interesting concept, but not developed in especially interesting ways. As always, Perrotta's writing style is fluid and easy to read.(less)
|
|
|
Leavy accomplishes her main goal--to draw a full portrait of the man--both good and bad. Ultimately, despite his flaws and failings as a person, this is a sympathetic portrait.
My main quibbles with the book are: (1) some quite lengthy (and, to me,...moreLeavy accomplishes her main goal--to draw a full portrait of the man--both good and bad. Ultimately, despite his flaws and failings as a person, this is a sympathetic portrait.
My main quibbles with the book are: (1) some quite lengthy (and, to me, not particularly interesting) digressions about Mantle's right handed hitting vs. his left handed hitting, the physiology of certain injuries, and a technical analysis of one of the most mythologised of Mantle's "tape measure" home runs; and (2) the author's one personal encounter with Mantle in 1983, which obviously was of great significance to her, but doesn't really add much to the picture of Mantle drawn here.(less)
|
|
|
Le Carre, the master of the cold war spy novel, has seemed a bit lost since the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. His novels always depended upon his portrayal of moral ambiguity and the shared professionalism of spies on both si...moreLe Carre, the master of the cold war spy novel, has seemed a bit lost since the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. His novels always depended upon his portrayal of moral ambiguity and the shared professionalism of spies on both sides of the contest in the context of a struggle viewed by us civilians as black and white/good vs. evil. In a post-Soviet world where we recognize everything as being in the gray zone, his characters and plots have less impact.
This book seems particularly slight, with the conflict coming largely from the internal battles among different factions of the British intelligence and security services. One problem with the book, however, is that Le Carre doesn't do a particularly good job of revealing these conflicts or tensions, leaving this reader, at any rate, somewhat in the dark.(less)
|