I will be the first to admit, I never expected to enjoy this book. I put off reading it for years—the movie didn’t do much for me—but I grabbed it offI will be the first to admit, I never expected to enjoy this book. I put off reading it for years—the movie didn’t do much for me—but I grabbed it off the shelf as light reading on a long flight. I was caught from the first chapter and pulled through the confusing plots and sub-plots, lies and deceits, fake names and false motivations, toward the not-exactly gratifying ending. This was my first Hammett, and my first of the potboiler genre, but not my last. Hammett’s style is hard, stark and concise; masculine in a way that Hemingway was credited for but without the self-conscious nihilism. I kept looking at the publication date, shocked at the 1930 date, and enjoyed it all the more. Aside from the overt sexism against gays and women, this is a very modern novel that remains universal in its truths: petty crime, greed, self-interest and raw sexuality. I had to grit my teeth over the sad homosexual stereotype in Joel Cairo, but felt heartened that he appeared to be getting down with the young and handsome hitman. Though he was ready to send his lover down the river to save himself, Cairo was the only person in the book to show any affection for another person. Sam Spade by contrast is the very essence of heterosexuality; uncaring, womanizing, out for himself, and self-promoting. You can’t help liking him....more
Like most people who grew up after the events depicted in this book, I had no understanding of Watergate aside from the well-publicized break in of thLike most people who grew up after the events depicted in this book, I had no understanding of Watergate aside from the well-publicized break in of the Democratic Headquarters during the Nixon reelection campaign. Now “gate” is attached to every political and non-political scandal—Monicagate, Strippergate, Nipplegate—so there had to be something more to the original “gate”. Little did I know that the Nixon administration green-lighted a cash-financed campaign to slander, disrupt, and disorient the Democratic campaign during Nixon’s sure-fire reelection bid; the hotel break-in was just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. During the 1960s it was illegal to funnel money from undisclosed donors to slander the opposing party; now the Murdoch Empire with Fox Five “news” and Republican-sponsored super PACs makes millions off of the same tactics with the approval of the Supreme Court.
The point of this work is to show how newsmen broke the story by persistently following up on their sources to get to the origins of the crime—guilty party: The Nixon Whitehouse—but the journalistic style of the book, spelled out on the original timeline of when things were learned—lacks the narrative excitement of the events as they occurred. The US government has never been trusted since this scandal but I never felt the weight of that shift in these chapters. The book I read was an old paperback that was literally disintegrating while I progressed—it has since been sent to recycling—but I would have benefited from a timeline that spelled out exactly when and where these events took place in sequence and how that impacted the political process as we know it today. Plus one for investigative journalism, we can’t lose that objectivity. ...more
This is one of the few instances where the movie outstripped the original text. This might be attributed to the talented cast assembled for the 1970sThis is one of the few instances where the movie outstripped the original text. This might be attributed to the talented cast assembled for the 1970s sleeper. I can't help but read Ethel, Norman and Chelsea as Katherine Hepburn, Henry Fonda and his daughter Jane, respectively. The play is about rebuilding estranged family relationships with new blood bridging the generations, and about fresh starts no matter what your age. The "resuscitation" of Norman via the 13 year old Billy might be trite, but no less true. The dialogue is simple and direct and escapes the trap of sentimentality. Fans of the movie may not find any additional material to gain insight into the characters, the movie actually builds on their relationships better than the play, but it is still an enjoyable read....more
The concept of this brief novel is daring; show the Holocaust through the eyes of a child, the son of manager of a Nazi death camp. Boyne captures theThe concept of this brief novel is daring; show the Holocaust through the eyes of a child, the son of manager of a Nazi death camp. Boyne captures the opinionated spirit of his 9 year old protagonist, Bruno, who has been uprooted from his home and life in Berlin and left to his own devices in a big empty house overlooking the place he is not supposed to talk about. He’s bored, friendless, and very self-centered like most boys his age. With no one to play with he discovers Shmuel, the boy described in the title, who just so happens to have been born on the same exact day as Bruno, the only thing they share in common. Their on-again-off-again relationship over a 2 year span is a bit far-fetched and sketchy, and their conversations which are so important to Bruno are only relayed in high-level descriptions. The relationship has a potential that doesn’t play out for me. Bruno’s lack of curiosity about the world around him, especially for a boy who claims to be an explorer, and impenetrable naïveté wear very thin and the boy never grows to understand anything about his best friend's reality. Bruno's dialogue continues to be peppered with cute euphemisms like The Fury (aka the Fuhrer) and Out With (for Auschwitz) despite repeated corrections by his distant father and harsh older sister. Parts of the book are fully unbelievable—if the boy can sneak under the fence into a concentration camp, what would stop people from escaping out? This work might be better for a younger reader who is unaware of the atrocities that occurred at Auschwitz, for they are touched upon so lightly that the mass executions and dehumanizing treatment of the prisoners are reduced to a general lack of food and the tendency for people to go missing. In his attempt to show this world from a child’s perspective Boyne negated the reality of what occurred on the other side of the barbed-wire fence. ...more
Loading...
