Death Books

Last week I read the books "A Spot of Bother," by Mark Haddon, and "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows," the former of which features a protagonist who is afraid of death, the latter of which is all about death. I'm starting "The Lovely Bones" by Alice Sebold, which is the story about a girl who relates the story of her grisly murder. I guess I'm just in a dark mood. But while I wait for it to pass, a quick book review or two:

"A Spot of Bother," was definitely not a page-turner. Haddon ("The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night Time") is not skilled at narrative, though his observations on life makes this story of a very average British family surprisingly enjoyable. Haddon's perception is sharp and he surprises with his accurate measurements of life. This novel pulled me in in spite of myself. The characters start out flat and two-dimmensional, and Haddon inflates them almost to exploding at the end.

"Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows," is as removed from Haddon's book as possible. Rowling does have a skill for narrative, though her writing is often jejune, as she relies on sophomoric techniques (I believe I mentioned her prodigious use of adverbs, and her tendancy to hand-hold her audience). After all, Harry has grown with his audience, and we should be able to put 2+2 together by now. Still, Harry is a coming-of-age story, a mystery series, a fantasy book, a book about prejudice and choices. The characters are so close, they're like family. Which makes it all the more difficult when Rowling starts killing them off like the Zodiak killer. For her 17-year investment in this series, she really ended it in a serial-killer way. But as the book dwells on death, it is a fitting end. This book is the furthest departure from her usual formula, but fans won't mind the deviation. A worthy finish for an enjoyable escape of a book.

Deathly Hallows

First off, let me start by saying I'm not a Harry Potter fan. Or I wasn't. Perhaps I took a highbrow (read: elitist) stance on the book, deeming the only worthy entry in the fantasy genre to be Tolkien and, perhaps, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. But not Harry Potter. I like Ondaatje, for heaven's sake! Kundera! The more I look back on it, the more I realize it really was elitism.

For starters, the foundation of my opinion on the books is based on my opinions about the movies, but that's never fair. I was also irritated that this little upstart novel from England would usurp another little upstart novel from England which, itself, was a literary phenomenon. Perhaps if Tolkien's book had been released today--in the age of cyber-technology--the word-of-mouth would have spread further and his books would have been more popular. Or, perhaps if technology in the mid-20th century was at contemporary levels (internet, email, etc...) the non-ADHD 50s generation would have been able to grasp the much denser material. Then again, maybe the technology would have caused attention spans to drop off much sooner. But that's a topic for another post. The point is, I was jealous of Rowling, and angry that she had dethroned Frodo.

So as the movies rolled by and I watched them, and sneered at the seemingly pasted-together story lines and hastily-organized characters, I shrugged with smug indignation at this bespectacled wizard as his book sales soared and soared.

But as countdown to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows starting reaching fever pitch, I noticed I was getting excited too. Why was I excited? I had never read a single book, and was proud of the fact. Surely, this book would come and go with little to no effect on my life and I could go on, reading Tolkien every autumn (with a little Dostoevsky thrown in for good measure), thank you very much. But as the deadline loomed, I found myself getting more and more excited.

Looking back, I probably wanted to be a part of a cultural phenomenon, the way children of the 70s must have felt when they lined up to watch Star Wars, or the way I might have felt in the 60s with a button proudly pinned to my chest that read, "Frodo lives." I missed the Beatles, and I saw The Matrix on a 13-inch television/vcr combo, which is not how that movie was intended, let me tell you. But here was a chance to be a part of a real cultural movement. These are the biggest selling books in history. I could join with 325 million people on July 21st, all reading together. So I decided to read it.

And you know what? They're not that bad. Rowling may be a big fan of adverbs, and I don't agree with all her literary choices, but she has a skill for narrative. The characters are three-dimmensional, they snap and sparkle and breath. I found myself caring about what went on in these silly books. And what had seemed like random storytelling in the movies--laying down train track minutes before the train arrives--I could see was artful planning from the very begginning. I could see Rowling's plan unfolding, not by accident, but very carefully, exactly how she would want. She is a master at the literary principle of Chekhov's gun (placing a gun in act one, which we forget about until act three), and I started guessing at her master plan, trying to fit the pieces of this mystery together.

As I read through the books, I realized I was running out of time. I made the decision to read these books at the end of May. By mid-July, I had only made it through two or three of the books, and Harry's story gets longer and longer in the telling. I went on vacation in Toronto and I knew I would have to finish Order of the Phoenix before I arrived back home if I were to have any hope of finishing the series in time for the July 21st release.

And so I did. And also Half-Blood Prince. And here I am, wristband in tow, ready to walk to the neighborhood Barnes & Noble and pick up my copy (the very first I've actually purchased, actually; the others being either borrowed, or library books, or audio CDs... I ingested them in a multitude of ways and venues). In ten minutes, the doors will open and the books will fly. Dorky little children, staying up way past their proper bedtimes, will excitedly read through as many pages as they can before sleep takes them. And I'll pick mine up, avoiding the little wizards running about, and I'll take it back to the warm light of my bedroom, and I'll find out where this rabbit hole ends up. And I'll share something with several million other people for just a few short hours.

Versus

It's been a while since my last post. I've had stuff to write about, but no compunction to write it. I'm a fan of top-ten lists, so let's do a vs. list, which should be almost as fun. What's better...

Star Wars vs. Star Trek

This is hard. One has Chewy, and one has Captain Pickard. I mean, it's Pickard! (Unless you're talking the whole franchise, and then you have to include Shatner and Bakula... hmmm, this argument is getting stronger for Lucasland.) Still, Star Wars has Vader. He's a villain for the ages.

Winner: Star Wars

Jim Carrey vs. Mike Myers

Two impoverished, Canadian comedians (and would-be dramatic thespians) vying for our affections and our pocketbooks. Both have some hefty franchises under their belts, both dressed up as a children's icon (the Grinch and the Cat in the Hat, respectively). Austin Powers was a unique franchise, and very imaginative. Unfortunately, it introduced "yeah baby" into popular vernacular and that is unforgiveable. Also, "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind," is my favourite movie, so that gets you big points. Jim Carrey can definitely over-act, (Bruce Almighty, anyone?) but he shows he can be subtle too.

Winner: Jim Carrey

Harry Potter vs. Lord of the Rings

If this were a numbers game, despite Rings' prolific sales, Harry would be kicking Frodo's ass up and down Privet drive. But I think even J.K. Rowling would concede that Tolkien's work is subtler, richer and more artistically satisfying. Both are epic works; both fantastic, but as they say in Highlander, "there can be only one." And that is...

Winner: Lord of the Rings

Beatles vs. Rolling Stones

Please.

Winner: Beatles

John vs. Paul

This is so hard. I recently responded to an online questionnaire about this. In it, I realized that my three favourite Beatles songs are John's. Namely, "Happiness is a Warm Gun," "I Want You (She's so Heavy)," and "A Day in the Life." Brilliance. John can really hit them out of the park. But for Paul's sheer volume of brilliant, quirky, small songs (songs like "Martha My Dear," "Golden Slumbers," or "She Came in Through the Bathroom Window,") and his brilliant post-Beatles career, and because most people think that being moody, edgy, and shot dead makes you a better songwriter, the winner has to be....

Winner: Paul

England vs. U.S.A.

Here I'm talking about cultural contributions, both of which are significant. The two most important contributors to modern literature and music (props to Canada, the bastard child of both countries and home of many great authors and music!). This is, perhaps, the toughest one of all. After all, mention F. Scott Fitzgerald and Hemmingway all you want; England just has to say Shakespeare. Not enough? Try Chaucer. Dickens.... Okay, Britain has a centuries-long headstart against this upstart America. What about music. Well, you can champion The Beach Boys, The Doors and The Grateful Dead all you want, but England need only drop one band: The Beatles. That trumps nearly everything. To be fair, America holds its own with artists like Jimi Hendrix, Bob Dylan and many others. In fact, my two favourite artists (Jon Brion and Jellyfish, respectively) are both American. England would still win this one, me thinks, if it were left to music. Led Zeppelin, Fleetwood Mac, The Who, Queen, Radiohead, Coldplay... it goes on forever. But then we hit a brick wall: namely visual media. Namely TV and movies. The British have spawned a few good shows and movies, but let's be honest-- 97% of all good movies come from America. If they're not filmed there, they are written, directed, acted and produced by Americans. Spielberg alone wins the States a lot of points. Think of all the huge films: Citizen Kane, Godfather, Jaws, Star Wars... I could go on forever, and I didn't even get past the 70s. Taking this cultural side into consideration, the winner is...

Winner: Tie. You can't break that tie at all. I will say that when the two countries collaborate together, it can produce good results (see: "The Office"). Then again, not always (see: Iraq War).

This was more fun than a top-ten list. Maybe I'll do this more often. Feel free to vote yourselves. Do you agree with my votes, faithful readers?

Rank Hypocrasy

This article, by Ron Fournier with the Associated Press, perfectly encapsulates my feelings on the Libby case, and its fallout:

Read it here:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070704/D8Q5QB900.html

...or here:

WASHINGTON (AP) - The hypocrisy is unpardonable. President Bush's decision to commute the sentence of a convicted liar brought out the worst in both parties and politics.

In keeping I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby out of jail, Bush defied his promise to hold wrongdoers accountable and undercut his 2000 campaign pledge to "restore honor and dignity" to the White House. And it might be a cynical first step toward issuing a full pardon at the conclusion of his term.

Democrats responded as if they don't live in glass houses, decrying corruption, favoritism and a lack of justice.

"This commutation sends the clear signal that in this administration, cronyism and ideology trump competence and justice," said Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, a leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination.

It was a brazen statement from a woman entangled in many Clinton White House scandals, including the final one: On his last day in office, President Clinton granted 140 pardons and 36 commutations, many of them controversial.

One of those pardoned was Marc Rich, who had fled the country after being indicted for tax evasion and whose wife had donated more than $1 million to Democratic causes.

Clinton's half brother, Roger, who was convicted of distributing cocaine and lobbied the White House on behalf of others, also received a pardon.

Hillary Clinton's brother, Hugh Rodham, was paid tens of thousands of dollars in his successful bid to win pardons for a businessman under investigation for money laundering and a commutation for a convicted drug trafficker. Her other brother, Tony, lobbied successfully for clemency on behalf of a couple convicted of bank fraud.

It's hard to fathom that those pardons had absolutely nothing to do with cronyism or ideology, but Hillary Clinton defended them. She drew a distinction between her husband's pardons and Bush's commutation.

In an interview with The Associated Press, the senator said Bill Clinton's pardons were simply a routine exercise in the use of the pardon power, and none was aimed at protecting the Clinton presidency or legacy. "This," she said of the Libby commutation, "was clearly an effort to protect the White House."

Indeed, there is ample evidence that Libby's actions were fueled by animosity throughout the White House toward opponents of the president's push to war against Iraq.

But Hillary Clinton will have a hard time convincing most voters that her brother-in-law would have gotten a pardon in 2001 had his name been Smith. Or that Rich's pardon plea would have reached the president's desk had he not been a rich Mr. Rich.

The hypocrisy doesn't stop there.

Bush vowed at the start of the investigation to fire anybody involved in the leak of a CIA agent's identity, but one of the leakers, adviser Karl Rove, still works at the White House. Libby was allowed to keep his job until he was indicted for lying about his role.

The president said Libby's sentence was excessive. But the 2 1/2 years handed Libby was much like the sentences given others convicted in obstruction cases. Three of every four people convicted for obstruction of justice in federal court were sent to prison, for an average term of more than five years.

Want more hypocrisy? Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney praised the commutation for Libby, quite a departure for a guy who brags that he was the first Massachusetts governor to deny every request for a pardon or commutation. Romney even refused a pardon for an Iraq war veteran who, at age 13, was convicted of assault for shooting another boy in the arm with a BB gun.

What about all the Republican politicians who defied public sentiment and insisted that President Clinton be impeached for lying under oath about his affair with Monica Lewinsky? Many of them now minimize Libby's perjury.

What about all those Democrats who thought public shame was punishment enough for Clinton lying under oath, basically the position adopted today by Libby's supporters? Many of those Democrats now think Libby should go to jail for his perjury.

"There appears to be rank hypocrisy at work here on both sides of the political spectrum," said Joe Gaylord, a GOP consultant who worked for House Speaker Newt Gingrich during impeachment. "It causes Americans to shake their heads in disgust at the political system."

The Libby case followed the same pattern of hype and hypocrisy established during Clinton's impeachment scandal. It's as if we're all sentenced to relive the same sad scene:

A powerful man lies or otherwise does wrong.

He gets caught.

His enemies overreach in the name of justice.

His friends minimize the crime in pursuit of self-interest.

And the powerful man hires a lawyer.

Marc Rich had a high-priced attorney for his battles with the justice system. His name was Scooter Libby.

RON FOURNIER

---

Nous Sommes Arrivees

We landed today after some pretty strong turbulence, though we were greeted fireworks which we watched from above as we landed at John Wayne Airport. We arrived 20 minutes ahead of schedule, our luggage was waiting for us right when we arrived, and we took a brief shuttle ride so we could come back and feed our cat. Besides the turbulence part, all in all, not a bad trip back.

Libby free, Liberty...?

How many people out there are are defending Bush's recent commutation of Libby's prison sentence, I wonder, by decrying, "well, Clinton pardoned dozens of people right before he left office!" I wonder if that rhetoric would work if, after dropping a nuclear bomb on Hawaii, Kim Jong-Il declared, "well, Truman did it back in '45!" Defending the indefensable with the indefensible does not work. This administration's lack of respect for accountability, and its push for absolute power has moved beyond annoying. It's scary. Like, Third Reich scary. Maybe I'll get thrown in Gitmo just for saying that. We'll see: fittingly, I arrive in California on the fourth of July. See you then, California!

Happy Canada Day!

Another quick post for you, folks. Today we, being Dara and I, celebrated Canada day with a relaxed but enjoyable visit with our friends Tom and Ang. We first got breakfast at Tim Horton's, then hung out at their place for a while, went to eat at "Lick's Burgers" (had the veggie burgers), saw the Michael Moore flick Sicko, went to a pub, grabbed some pizza, and then came home for some beers. Could it be any more Canadian than that?

As for hanging with Tom and Ang, we had a great time as always. We're never wanting for conversation when T&A are around.

As for Sicko, I must admit that I had no real desire to see the movie, American health care being a subject that hardly interests me, and has--until recently--been completely irrelevant to me. But as I watched the movie, I was moved by the tragic stories that unfolded throughought, and I reeled with remourse and disbelief as I watched people choose between attaching one severed finger or the other (both were too expensive), or a man dying with cancer (who has a perfect bone marrow doner match) succumb to his injuries because the insurance company found bone marrow surgery to be "experimental", or a woman whose child died needlessly because she had mistakenly taken her child to the wrong hospital, which would not cover treatment.

Before critics (not film critics, Michael Moore critics) eventually start poking holes in this film, I hope that many people will see it, so that it will underline the many injustices that occur on a daily basis and bring to light the conversation that people need to start having about this (and many other) issues. But before people start jabbing those holes in, I hope they will consider the basic premise of the movie; the parting shot from Michael Moore before the film ends: that--friends and enemies, alike--we are all in the same boat, and we need to look out for each other. Critics of Michael Moore are encouraged to watch the movie.

Oh, and happy Canada Day to you all.