Not From Concentrate, Plenty of Pulp

#95 Pulp Fiction - directed by Quentin Tarantino

If you think about it, Pulp Fiction is as hopeful as Bambi.

Upon viewing Pulp Fiction as an early teen, I was blown away by the music, dancing, violence, ass-fucking, drug use...everything. Years later, what strikes me most about the film is the depth and heart is possesses. As a kid all the flash that goes along with it hits you. I feel like as a youngster I was truly taking in by the glamor of the underworld. Upon seeing it now, though, I was all wrong.

Quentin Tarantino utilizes an all-star staff to achieve his finest film to date (Sorry to all those Jackie Brown fans). I mean Bruce Willis, Samuel L. Jackson, Uma Thurman, John Travolta, Ving Rhames -- big studs, man. However, unlike all his other movies where one central plot exists (robbery, revenge, grindhousin'), Pulp Fiction is about how all these different stories come together.

Like I said before, the dialogue is top-notch. Exchanges are quick, surreal and oh-so poignant. Whether it's the Royale with Cheese, the watch monologue or Fox Force Five Tarantino earns us chops as a writer. In other films, it wears on me, but Pulp Fiction never gets to the point of being annoying.

Another aspect that's great about this film is the out-of-sync developing. That way you really understand that Jackson's character has witnessed a miracle and will turn over a new leaf (sequel anyone?). However, it's a little confusing at times, so I'll reorder the film in a proper sequence. I'm sure I forgot something.

*NOTE DON'T READ IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE FILM
(But come on, this came out like 15 years ago. Get with it.)

-Butch gets his watch as a little kid.
-Vincent and Jules ride around, go to dude's house, almost get killed, pop caps themselves.
-Marvin dies, Vincent and Jules go to Jimmie's house and the Wolf helps them. They take a taxi to a diner.
-Honey Bunny and Ringo are all cutesy before they decided to rob the diner.
-Vincent goes to the bathroom, Bunny and Ringo try to rob diner, Jules won't give up the brief case. Situation occurs, is resolved. No one dies, everyone goes on their way.
-Butch and Marsellus discuss the fight Butch is to throw.
-Jules (presumably) quits, Vincent gets more info. about his date with Mia.
-Vincent goes to by drugs.
-Date with Mia. She OD's on his drugs, but is okay.
-Butch wins fight, escapes.
-Other fighter dies, Marsellus launches head-hunt for Butch.
-Butch and Fabienne talk, do sex stuff, realize they don't have his father's watch.
-Butch goes back to find watch, kills Vincent, hits Marsellus with car. All hell breaks lose, and Marsellus gets done in the butt. Ouch. Butch frees him and they strike up a truce. Butch escapes.
-THE END

Honestly, it wouldn't be nearly as good if Tarantino did it this way. So kudos to Quentin.

Also, lots of super-cool cameos, which I painstakingly high-light below.
Cameos:
-Kathie Griffin (of Suddenly Susan fame) as herself;
-Julia Sweeney (Saturday Night Live) as girl that owns tow-lot that will look the other way;
-Phil Lamarr (Mad TV) as poor, poor Marvin;
-Tarantino, as Jimmie Dimmick;
-Steve Buscemi (every Cohen brothers' movie ever) as Buddy Holly...yeah, seriously;
-and of course, Christopher Walken, who never needs an explanation.

While before I thought this was a glamorization of crime, sex, drugs and violence, now I realize it was none of that. If anything, it's a PSA against all of those vices and ailments that plague society. What Pulp Fiction is really about is escape and re-birth. Throughout the movie, people that stayed in the underground were punished. Marcellus gets fucked in the ass; all the dudes that torture him get it given right back to them; his wife OD's; Vincent Vega gets killed.

Although you don't know what happens to any of the characters that escape, Tarantino makes all their exits hopeful. Butch and Fabienne begin a new life in the South Pacific; Honey Bunny and Ringo have some cash in their pockets and incentive to reform; Jules has a new lease on life. For all the mindless lust that is depicted in the film, the real theme is rebirth and second chances.

And I'm glad I took a second chance on Pulp Fiction.
---
Up next (#94) Goodfellas directed by Martin Scorsese

White Washing Memories and Consciences

#95 The Woman in White by Wilkie Collins

I almost thought Tom Hanks was gonna make an appearance towards the end.

Semester's kill me. On account of all the fancy book-learning and Collegian (and Chevron Says) writing I do, the Lemon Disco blog falls to the wayside. Pretty sad stuff. However, with this post my triumphant return at pretending to be a literary critic is in place. I know that I noted something else as my next piece, but constraints on what the library had available six months ago forced my hand into reviewing The Woman in White by Wilkie Collins (a dude).

Much like the previously-reviewed Dracula, TWIW utilized first-person journal entries as the means of telling a thrilling caper with numerous twists and/or turns. Although there are primarily two narrators, several are used. Unlike Dracula, though, Collins only employees first-person journal entries written in a collection for legal purposes -- newspapers, letter or tomb stones don't document this story.

When I picked up the book originally, I (erroneously) judged by its cover that it would be a lame love-story, a romance novel, a chick-flick in prose form. Thankfully, I was wrong and found an intriguing story of deception. The woman in white was not so much a character but instead, a ghost of a person that evildoers used as tool to do their evil. Her name was Anne Catherick, and I feel like she had less than eight pages of dialogue in the lengthy novel. She's more of a catalyst than a character.

We've seen this plot before: artist boy is poor, gets employed by rich English man to teach his niece to draw; boy falls for niece, and vice versa; conflict -- niece is betrothed to prude dude; boy dramatically leaves for America; wedding ensues; turns out prude dude is only in it for the money and, with fat Italian man, arranges a false death with a niece look-a-like; boy comes back from America to find his love is dead; not really, though, so it becomes his mission to clear her name and restore her legacy.

Typical English literature, right?

Many characters, plot turns and strong-armingnesss leads to a interesting read. Not light on the pages, but, unlike Dracula, these pages are more purposeful. Meaningless scene description is not included, and the plot continues to evolve right up until the end. Even after the climax, a solid denouement ties the loose ends together and answers all lingering questions one may have had about the resolution and characters.

There are a few themes and similarities with previous novels written about on this blog that I would like to go into.

I understand women were viewed differently in 17th Century England, but TWIW is not an empowering read. Certain feminist aspects exist, but on the whole, most women are depicted as weak and subservient to men. One of the biggest problems occurs because the niece, Laura, is too frail a figure to testify on the conspiracy regarding her faked death. Collins made the boy, Walter Hartright, jump through very elaborate and convoluted hoops to rectifying the wrong. Fat Italian man's wife is depicted as a viper in one sentence, but a faithful conjugal being in the next. All her actions are laid out by her husband, and she is purposeless without his guidance.

Two strong ladies are here, but they are brow-beaten with insults from the author. The niece's sister, Marian, is the strongest and most dynamic character in the novel. She is a constant source of strength for her sister and Walter, and she is instrumental in the restoration of her sister's legacy. However, Collins describes her, pretty much, as being ugly as sin. No man would ever be interested in someone as man-ish and independent as Marian. Maybe Collins was writing about how the world wasn't ready for the strong woman -- despite her existence -- but I wasn't buying it.

The other empowering figure defamed by Collins was the mother of the girl who's death allowed for Laura to appear dead -- Mrs. Catherick. This woman sold her daughter out, deceived a man into marrying her and in essence, was a cheap floozy that valued money and status more than humanity. But boy was she a tough cookie. Collins makes her out to be a bitch, but a strong bitch that I'd never want to fuck with.

Sure, feminism is a topic that I've delved into a few times before on this blog, but secret societies is an uncharted territory. About seven-eights into the novel, Collins introducing a da Vinci Code-esq group known only to the reader as the "Brotherhood." This group exists for political purposes and forces its members to be called upon at a given moment to achieve political ends -- namely, assassination. Its inclusion in TWIW is a little unnecessary and sort of a cop-out (the Italian man's membership in this group forces his other-wise unsympathetic hand to yield), but it is still interesting as hell. Collins effectively describes that throughout history, groups like the "Brotherhood" cause change, define what the status quo is and run countries without the public ever knowing or wanting to know. It made me a little uncomfortable, though, and cause me to wonder who is the man behind the curtain in our nation.

To tie this in with other books on this list, TWIW describes a hallmark of English literature: cold professionalism. In The Hound of the Baskervilles, Dracula and TWIW lawyers, policemen, doctors and citizens in general are very detached from the subjects they encounter. I've seen this in British literature outside this list in the works of Dickens; a character like Uriah Heep (not the band) goes about his work in a professional manner that is business as usual, no matter what the circumstances are. Maybe it is all about the benjamins, but white-collared workers in the UK are cold bitches.

Although Gone with the Wind has been my favorite thus far, I can say that The Woman in White runs a close second. When the lovers love, the bad dudes meet their reckonings or when people are simply hanging out, I intimately followed the characters in this piece. I'm glad I read this one and am even considering viewing the 1940s movie based on it.
----
Up next:
Movies - Pulp Fiction (#95)
Novels - The Good Soldier Svjek (#96) by Jaroslav Hasek

Paging Doctor Acula....Dr.Acula

#97 Dracula by Bram Stoker

He's been a blood sucker longer than Carson Daily.

Back in the book blogging game, I return - finally - with my Dracula review. A few preliminary, non-educational things before I get into the meat of this review. One, the book's author Bram Stoker's first name is short for Abraham...I thought thought that was cool. Good stuff, Abe. Two, in his movie, Mel Brooks follows the basic plot pretty closely; whereas Young Frankenstein - like many Frankenstein movies - alters Mary Shelley's plot, Dracula: Dead and Loving It honors Stoker well.

One of the initial aspects of Dracula that first strikes you is the medium in which it is delivered. Stoker chose to write it limited, first-person in the from of letters, diary entries, newspaper articles, telegrams and other various methods of communication in 19th century Europe. Novelty aside, this method works as the truly scientific nature of the piece is conveyed more affectively. As the story evolves, the reader reflects on hypotheses laid out and conclusions drawn; Stoker lets you think that you are reading a scientific journal written by some pretty educated dudes. Also, the story's climax is told by a character who is watching the action from a distance; it's odd to have a play-by-play account of a battle or conversation, but it works for Stoker.

A major character in the novel is Mina Harker, the wife of a solicitor (British talk for lawyer) and recent victim of a vampire's bite. All other characters - including the legendary Van Helsing - worship her; yet, they continually demean her. I understand women were not held in the highest regard back then, but they give her so many backhanded compliments, it's silly. Every time she comes up with a brilliant idea (that the men, for all their Ph.D's, were not able to devise), they are shocked. I think she bailed their asses out at least six times in the novel. Aside from offering noble chivalry towards Mina, the nicest compliment ever paid by them is saying she has "a man's brain." Nice. I'd like to think Stoker was a feminist and proved a point by making one of his protagonists a woman.

Aside from rampant chauvinism, another thought-provoking aspect is the appearance of religious symbol. By looking at standard urban legends, it is commonly held that vampires are kept at bay by crucifixes, holy water, rosary beads, etc. Chief vampire slayer in Dracula, the aforementioned Van Helsing, uses all of these as tools against the count. An addition that I wasn't aware of, but feel probably was in that movie Bram Stoker's Dracula, was the inclusion of the Eucharist as a (primary) tool in defeating vampires. The tone of the play dripped of religious fervor. I suppose when one is faced with the possibility of walking the earth for centuries after their earthly death, feasting on the flesh of humans, he or she may start praying a little bit more than before. What struck me as interesting was how often doctors Van Helsing and (principle character) John Seward referred to God. I suppose this is set in a time when the church and medicine were not strictly at war with each other, but it still seemed odd for a doctor to include in his medical notes a phrase like "If only the good Lord would intervene."

On top of the religious symbol was the awesome gross-out factor. The bloody details Stoker used to describe the gruesome accounts of a vampires death were stomach churning. If you don't like term "decapitated the head and filled the loose cranium with garlic" then maybe Dracula isn't for you.

Character development is great, though. Aside from Mina and Van Helsing, Seward really steals the show. The owner of a sanitarium in London, Seward falls for the destined for vampire-hood Lucy; after he is romantically rebuffed by her, Seward still remains her devoted friend and tries to cure her of the ailment....of being a vampire. When Mina is sick or Lucy dies, Seward displays deep affection and grief; his diary entries are the darkest and show the kind of emotion only the owner of a nut house can possess. Additionally, fascinating in of himself is the titled charactered, Dracula. Crafty and evil, with the strength of an Irish setter (it's a strong dog, I swear), Van Helsing characterizes the count as one with the brain of a child. His justification lies in the fact that Dracula can only focus on one prey at a time. Although (as demonstrated by my weak explanation) I never fully grasped Van Helsing's characterization, it gives more depth to Dracula's character than is typically alloted.

A criticism I will make, though, is that Stoker painstakingly describes every last detail and development. The events leading up to the finale took seven chapters and roughly 150 pages; Stoker could have summed up everything in two chapters, 30 pages. I don't mind long books; as you can see by my Gone With the Wind (1,000 pages) review, sometimes I love them. The pages just have to be meaningful, and this one is drawn out.

Another critique is in the form of a lame post-script written by Mina's boring, yet devoted husband Jonathan Harker. Here, Harker wraps up the story seven years later. This includes unnecessary information about some characters getting married, a trip back to Transylvania and the naming of the Harker's first child. It's sappy, trite and screams of a Hollywood ending. I know Stoker wrote this years before Tinseltown, but it seemed as if he knew some dumb kid would want to know what happened to Van Helsing after the vampires.

As a whole, Dracula is a good read that sometimes is long-winded and sappy. It does scare at times, but the fear is based on the psychology of it all, more than boogie-men, or vampires, rather.

----
Who knows when I'll finish this, but the next book for me is the first one I've never heard of, The Good Soldier Svjek (#96)by Jaroslav Hasek. Oh boy.

And, a Pulp Fiction review should be out soon.

And I Still Haven't Found, What I'm Looking 4

#96 The Searchers directed by John Ford

If you thought the PATRIOT Act was bad, wait until he illegally searches you.

Titles of movies and band names often blend together. "The Untouchables," "Men Without Hats," "Deuce Bigalow Male Gigolo," "Initech." Which is which?

John Wayne's epic Western The Searchers stirs the memory of 50s and 60s R&B groups. The name has the feel of the Coasters or Temptations or even the Proclaimers (although, they are a mid-90s Australian one-hit wonder....."(I Will Walk) 500 Miles"....I'm sure it was like on a car commercial or in the trailer of a Sandra Bullock movie, too). In fact, the band the Searchers were not a Motown Barry Gordy product, but instead a contemporary of the Beatles. Who knew?

Aside from whatever misguided notion I held regarding the movie, a part of my past came out half-way through the picture. More on that later.

Remember the Civil War? Well, Wayne's character does. After the surrender at Appomattox, he takes the South's defeat a little too personally and wonders around the country being a crazy, vigilante nomad that enjoys showing up all those dirty, carpetbagging Yankees. The movie opens with him returning home several years after the war has ended. His family (brother, sister-in-law and their kids) is happy to greet him, but do notice he is a little crazy.

All of that is explained in like five seconds and then everyone is brutally murdered by Indians. EXCEPTIONS - Wayne (as unbalanced, vigilante Confederate), the family's adopted half-Indian son and a little girl who was kidnapped by the "Injuns." Shortly into the movie, you realize what they are searching for, the little girl.

Then all of a sudden you realize that the characters you spent a little time getting to know and thought were going to be the focus are dead. So, the film introduces a whole new slew of Texans to further confuse you.

After extension research and lab results, you finally sorta figure out what's going on. Wayne and Indian boy look for girl. Simple enough. But a subplot exists between Indian boy and girl who was the sister of a boy that was seeing Indian boy's adoptive sister. This loosely connected character who suddenly becomes integral to the plot is played by Natalie Wood. So good for her.

All of that seems convoluted (and is), but it takes up little screen time. Mostly, you see Wayne and halfie traverse these ridiculously well-filmed scenes following or "searching" for the Red man. Every so often it cuts back to Wood hanging out, longing for her little Indian boy.

What brings the movie back to my life is a little scene half-way through the movie. A few years back my (extended) family and I were vacationing down the Jersey Shore, as we are prone to do. While watching TV one night, we had quite the giggle-fest, which featured my father comparing a facially-distorted woman to claymation, a weird boarding house joke and us a laughing at this stupid, hick dude playing guitar and screaming "She did?!?"

That little scene was taken from The Searchers. Half-Indian boy gets conned into taking an Indian wife. He writes a letter to Wood and she reads it aloud to a group of onlookers. When she mentions her lover's elicit affair, hick dude screams out his line that kept my family in stitches. I find it amusing how one scene taken out of context can be so entertaining to a group of people in the right state of mind.

As for the movie itself, the director John Ford (The Grapes of Wrath, The Quite Man) poses some interesting philosophical questions. Initially, the search for the little girl is tiresome and unfulfilling. The two long to find their objective, but like Ahab and Moby Dick, their inevitably quest becomes more important than what they are trying to find.

When they finally do corral the girl (years later) she refuses to go with them. All the searching was for nothing. In the search that is life, the end product is almost never what you were looking for in the first place. However, Ford doesn't let this temporary obstacle faze him and they do eventually (again years later) convince her to desert the Indian life for a more refined one.

Would this movie be better, more poetic, more artsy if they never were reunited with their lost family member? I felt that way until I thought about the last scene of the movie some more. The girl, the Indian boy and Wood (now his future wife) walk into the house, complacent and at peace. Wayne watches them go, then turns around, gets back on his horse and literally rides off into the sunset.

For some men, the search takes the life from you.

-----
Honestly, it is tough to find time to read non-required books at school, but I hope Dracula will be done sooner than later (mid-October?) The next movie will be the first one I already have seen Pulp Fiction (#95).

Los tres amigos

#98 The Three Musketeers by Alexandre Dumas

His vice-like grip on the affairs of Europe was staggering.

Swashbuckling, roof-top jumping and sexy mustaches are about all I knew going into The Three Musketeers by Alexandre Dumas. It turns out I was wrong on almost all three accounts. I unfairly lumped musketeers in with pirates; Dumas’ men were more gallant than swashbuckling. Also, most of their adventures were personal – not grand political coups – so it involved duel-fighting instead of the jumping. However, the ‘staches did run supreme.

All-in-all most assumptions going into the book were false. Possibly because of my many erroneous assumptions The Three Musketeers went above my expectations (and yes, I expected more than chocolate covered nougat).

The tale is an adventure set in Richelieu-dominated France. When the book opens Louis XIII is the king of France who is estranged from his wife (Anne of Austria) and allows himself to be manipulated by Cardinal Richelieu. People are divided into factions – the royalists and the cardinalists and Catholics and Huguenots (Protestants). Basically the Protestants are non-existent except for a small group in La Rochelle which the Cardinal decides to isolate to punish the queen (who is in love with the duke of Buckingham, England’s chief diplomat). Sounds like a modern day soap opera a little, doesn't it?

Lots of royal intrigue throughout the novel, which the musketeers sometimes knowingly and other times ignorantly play a big part in. The brief biography of Dumas in my edition says “his work ignored historical accuracy, psychology, and analysis, but its thrilling adventures and exuberant inventiveness” delighted readers. OK, so the three musketeers might not have been involved with almost all the major events of Louis XIII’s reign, but it's nice to pretend (and a hell of a lot more interesting that way). They were real, though, so that’s all that really matters (Athos, Porthos and Aramis were the known pseudonyms for three down-on-their-luck French nobles).

Another fallacy I had going into this novel, which I feel is very important, is the idea that the three musketeers themselves are the protagonists. FALSE. A younger, smarter, handsomer and better fighting country boy named d’Artagnan is the focus of everything. Not only is he the main character, he also skillfully manipulates the cardinal, the evil Lady de Winter and even the three musketeers.

D’Artagnan drives the plot, but the three friends serve as representations of the human personality - so they are the symbolic mumbo-jumbo (You didn’t think I had the hypothesis of an English major inside of me, did ya?). Athos is the wizened, thoughtful being, Porthos the vein, attention-starved, comedy type, with Aramis serving the spiritual side of things. The phrase “All for one and one for all,” (coined by d’Artagnan, not by one of the three) not only shows their unity in battle, but also exhibits their unity of spirit and mind. Separate they may be stock characters but if viewed as a whole the three musketeers are a complete personality. How ‘bout that for theoretical bull shit?

Respect and honor are concepts Dumas touches upon numerous occasions. In the 17th Century, self-respect and image were more important than life. Death over a frivolous misunderstanding was considered noble. When men walk down the street and a passerby sneezes in the wrong direction, a duel is fought. If a lady is playing Connect Four and her opponent cheats, a duel is fought. Moreover, if a person confuses the definition between “fortnight” and “forthright,” you better believe a duel will be fought.

In addition to views on honor, the author has a unique opinion on women. Dumas depicts a woman as the main villain. Milady aka Lady de Winter aka Countess de La Fere aka Charlotte Backson serves as the devil personified. Crushing men’s hearts – along with other anatomical entities – to her was as mundane as brushing her teeth. The author makes the point that women were not necessarily silly and inferior (a novel concept back then) but instead duplicitous and cunning. Their sway over men – in the book – caused wars to be fought, people to loose their lives and reputations as well as grudges to be held unnecessarily. It seems Dumas thought that if women were not causing the destruction of Western society, it was a dull day for them.

I've yet to be disappointed by a book on this list (crossing fingers). So far I like Gone With the Wind the best, though. Maybe I'm just a sap for Southern charm. School's starting up soon, so we'll see if I am able to continue my readings. The next book - who knows when I'll get it done - will be Bram Stoker's Dracula (# 97). I hope I can finish it by Halloween.

Kiss Me Kate

#97 Bringing Up Baby directed by Howard Hawks

Old ladies aren't the only dinosaurs in this movie

Often times I go into a movie without doing background research because I feel it will hinder my viewing experience or give me an unwanted preconceived notion from someone else's negative or positive opinion. Usually, I even try to avoid reading the On-Demand description or the blurb written on the back of the box.

So when I sat down to view yet another Katherine Hepburn movie, Bringing Up Baby, co-staring Cary Grant, I expected some light romantic comedy where the two of them would be like a married (or divorced) couple who would be thrust into having a baby. Hepburn would be headstrong, cold and distant; Grant a hunk who got whatever he want. Pretty much I thought it would be a prequel to The Philadelphia Story.

First off, the movie itself is not a simple romantic comedy. Although a love story drives the story, this film is - as many agree - is one of the first and best screwball comedies of all time. The plot revolves around trying to lasso a leopard ("Baby") while at the same time keeping up a rouse that Grant is a big game hunter (he really is a paleontologist - even though the movie says zoologist) who just experienced a nervous brake down. Ridiculous situation follows ridiculous situation. The audience - even though they root for the couple - never really has a chance to catch their breath and realize they are being tricked into watching a romantic movie.

That fact may be help by the unromantic-ness of the characters. Grant, the consummate Hollywood heartthrob, is a big nerdy scientist. Stammering, awkward and socially inept, Dr. John Huxley is totally under the thumb of rich socialite Susan (Hepburn) and doesn't even know it. That's because Hepburn - although controlling - is just as clumsy and awkward as he. She is a silly, rich girl who sees a toy that she wants (the good doctor) and won't let his impending marriage to his prudish manager stand in her way.

This movie did initially did terrible at the box office and was the last film done at RKO Studios by Hepburn before she bought her contract out - a ballsy move to say the least. Helped by the advent of VCRs, DVDs and even a re-release in a newly colored version (there's Gilligan's Island old episodes like this, too) the film slowly gained recognition as a truly visionary comedy. Initial response, box office figures and critics' remarks are not a true way to measure the importance of a movie. Imagine if Hepburn and Grant's careers nose-dived after this? What would we do? Maybe Gigli should get another look then.

Another comment is the good deal stereotypes older movies have in them. This one depicts an alcoholic Irish gardener, a black driver, a brainy German psychiatrist and, worst of all, a frigid, decrepit, rich, old Protestant lady who screams "Well, I never!" a lot. Stock characters, sure, are important, but let's develop people at least a little bit.

My review of the candy-bar book will be out soon. The next movie will be #96 The Searchers.

Ain't Nothing But a Hound Dog

#99 The Hound of the Baskervilles by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

Watson may have wanted to be a little bit more intimate with the good sherlock.

After reading the lengthy Gone With the Wind, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes' classic The Hound of the Baskervilles brevity was indeed refreshing. The same could be said for Doyle's cutting dialog, clever scenarios and curve balls to keep you guessing throughout the read.

THOTB tells a tale of an established English family cursed by an ancestor who supposedly possesses a massive hound that haunts inhabitants of their manor....or so you are led to believe. Bottom line - someone is killed, Holmes and Dr. Watson are contracted to solve the mystery/protect the heir. Many twists and turns later, mystery solved, everyone is happy.

Some words on the novel, though.

Holmes may be one of the most interesting English characters ever created. Every time he appears, the reader is enticed by his genius and enthralled by every mystery (no matter bigger or small) he solves. The novel opens with a cane left at his house; after looking at it for thirty seconds Holmes predicts (accurately) the build of the man and his occupation. Sure, it's easy when the author is creating all of this, yet there is a great charm and mystery that Doyle keeps about the detective that does not disappoint.

Watson, on the other hand, is a big boob. Sadly for the reader, Watson narrates the story with his boobery (thank my mom for that adjective) and is much more active in the novel then Holmes. The pay-off for Holmes' absence is worth it, but the cost of spending time with this medical moron is painful.

Also, Holmes and Watson have this odd homo-erotic relationship going on between them. I've read that Watson had a wife in the first few books but she isn't mentioned in this one. For no reason the pair go to an art gallery in the middle of the novel and hang out. If I had the time, I bet I could prove that Watson had the hots for the sherlock. It would go for naught, however, as it seems Holmes is asexual and has no time for silly physical or emotional happiness.

Small shock to me when reading the book - Holmes apparently has a cocaine habit (Check this article out on it). Doyle doesn't directly allude to it in THOTB but he does depict the detective brooding in a smokey room where he loses all touch with reality and becomes fully in touch with the world of the crime. Watson reports feeling very light-headed every the incident and asks to open a window. I'm not sure why Doyle would give Holmes this character flaw but it is interesting that the great Sherlock Holmes and Tony Montana have something in common.

I now see why my grandmother likes detective stories so much as they are short and fun (like this guy). However, I don't know if it should have been included on this list. There wasn't any real social commentary (other than bad guys get caught by good guys) and, unless the hound = the devil, symbolism wasn't prevalent. All-in-all a good read and I suppose a good book doesn't necessarily have to be an English teacher's wet dream to be effective.

Up next (after a short break for Harry Potter) will be sure to be a swash-buckling good time - The Three Musketeers by Alexandre Dumas (# 98).