Feathered friends

Brian’s dad, born in 1896, lived in the Mansfield area in England’s ‘Robin Hood’ county. In 1943, during World War Two, British citizens were experiencing short supply of foodstuff and of many other goods. The dad was a bird lover and kept a large cage containing a couple of dozen contented well-cared for budgies, but at this time the bird food supply in the town became non existent. The dad could devise no alternative means of providing his budgies with a suitable diet. With great reluctance he released all of his feathered friends to cope (or not) in the wild. Six year old Brian carries an image of dad, a few days later, smashing the budgie cage to smithereens with an axe; an action mixing both sorrow and rage.

The dad’s interest in birds continued and, at the age of 70, having retired from British Rail some years earlier, he took up a little job feeding chickens at a local farm. Dad looked forward to wandering about the farm scattering feed to the eager, contented chickens. Well, you know what’s coming. He had to run feed into a gulley where cramped, caged birds could just about get their beaks to the feeding trough. About half an hour into the second day, dad could stand the sorry plight of his charges no longer. His urge to release his feathered friends into the wild revisited him, and soon about 200 chickens were causing chaos on nearby roads and the chicken farmer was having an apoplectic fit. Needless to say, dad was sacked but fortunately escaped prosecution.

Brian tod this tale with emotion and pride.

Don't mention the war

A chum of mine has a poster of this picture in his living room. It always prompts me to reflect on the cause of the unhappy / anguished / secretive / tormented etc. expression on the face of daddy. It's intriguing as to why the girl asks this 'manly' type question while the boy seems absorbed in playing with his toy soldiers. I guess that the nub of it is that the question has confronted daddy with a problem.

Is it a general problem about exposing inocent young minds to the horrors of war? Or is it a specific problem about his own contribution, or lack of it, to 'the Great War'?

Watchmen

If you like action-packed films with no-holds-barred battles to the death, this will be ‘right up your street’. There’s blood oozing over every pavement edge and welling out from under every closed door. There’s loads of publicity surrounding Watchmen so if you’ve not just been released from Guantánamo Bay you’ll probably already know something about it, but just in case here’s an arty-smarty link:

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/features/watchmen-returns-the-20year-struggle-to-bring-a-cult-classic-to-the-big-screen-1632148.html

and here’s an in-your-face ad link:

http://www.watchmenmovie.co.uk/intl/uk/

Well , where does this leave me? Let me give you my version of the plot.

It’s 1985 and Tricky Dicky Nixon is in his fifth term in office. He suddenly became popular when he got his chum Dr Manhattan to win the Vietnam War for him. Needless to say, Dr M has genuine super human powers and is indestructable. The Watchmen are a bunch of self appointed vigilantes who adopt funny names and dress up in weird outfits. It seems that they not only “go to the gym” but also, unlike us lesser mortals, do lots of stuff when they get there. They seem to be super fit and hyper assured of their combat skills and tricks. My favourite is Rorschach. He is slightly built and his super hero outfit consists of tatty raincoat and trilby and, most importantly, a sack over his head featuring moving ink stains on the face. In the film I think you will find that Rorschach convincingly debunks the Rorschach inkblot test. Rorschach has a steely determination to wipe out evil, so he’s kept very busy. His unwavering determination stands him in good stead. He spent (a bit) of time in prison and since he’d been responsible for putting a fair number of his new chums behind bars we expected him to become a victim. We soon learned that our fears were unfounded when one enormous thug gleefully told Rorschach: “Now you are locked up with all of us”. But, after a brief telling incident involving boiling chip fat, Rorschach’s response was: “Wrong. You are locked up with me!”

A few superheroes get the sense that something is afoot when one of their number is murdered – this takes some time and involves much blood and amazing powers of recovery. Maybe one of their own number is up to something (on a grand scale of course)? Dr Manhattan rematerialises himself on Mars to reflect on life and the universe and of course on woman trouble (Silk Spectre 11). Could it be that one of their own number is up to some massive scheme to save humanity which unfortunately means that approx 50% of the human race will have to die? By the way, The two remaining heroes are Nite Owl 11 and Ozymandias.

The advertising blurb tells us that it would be wrong to dismiss Watchmen as just another film of a comic (sorry, graphic novel). The story involves “themes of power, tolerance and the nature of social progress…held together by complex characters and a powerful story line”.

I have a copy of the graphic novel and the film has inspired me to read (and look at) it.

Anyway, it would be good to get feedback if there’s anyone left out there!

“A Good Day To Die” by Simon Kernick

It’s a far cry from “Jane Eyre”. When I picked it up at the charity shop, although I’d never heard of the author, it was easy to deduce that I had a racy crime thriller in my hands. The opening sentence prepared me for a high body count:

“Richard Blacklip wanted to kill someone.”

It turned out that Blacklip was to be disappointed as the main character, an ex London cop called Dennis Milne, had other plans for him. Some 3 years before, Milne, whilst still in the London Met., had ended up killing an undisclosed number of ‘bad’ people as part of his unorthodox approach to crime solving. As the book opens Milne is on the run living in hiding in the Philippines. He learns of the unsolved murder in London of his best mate in the met who was still a cop until his unexpected demise. Our (super?) hero decides to return to London to avenge the killing and all hell breaks loose. I must admit that the term gratuitous violence crossed my mind. Here’s a taster where some drunks were being less than kind to a stripper in a sleazy pub:

“…snarling and cursing she launched a ferocious surprise attack …with the heal of one of her shoes…. The nearest drunk got the heal right in the top of his head, the blow landing with such force that I swear it penetrated bone… She had to work hard to get it out again.”

As the plot unfolds a paedophile ring with connections in high places, a sexy female reporter and, of course, a collection of ruthless villains come into the frame. The plot does hold water and unfolds with some gripping twists. This book is Simon Kernick's second Dennis Milne story and the author is planning a third, so this news may help you to decide whether or not, against all the odds, our hero manages to survive his many scrapes in "A good Day to Die".

I recommend this thriller. There’s a good intro from the author, written in June 2008, and it’s clear that he’s strong on background research and the plot keeps the reader guessing to the end. I'll close with a bit of street philosophy from our thoughful killer/hero describing life in our glorious capital city:

“A never ending conflict between the haves and the would-haves-if they could-get-their-hands-on-it, and the people meant to keep them apart – the coppers.”

‘The Reader (2008)’, a film directed by Stephen Daldry

It’s a rainy day in post WW2 Berlin when a quirk of fate brings 15 year old Michael Berg (actor, David Kross) into very intimate contact with a woman in her thirties. The woman Hanna Schmitz is played by Kate Winslet so the reader will be unsurprised that Herr Berg was very pleased with himself over his first explosive experiences of sex. The fun/erotic/sexy part of the film doesn’t last too long. After a couple of months sexy Schmitz evacuates her flat in a hurry leaving young Micky bereft, confused and unhappy. It turns out that Hanna is harbouring a secret past as a SS guard in the Nazi concentration camps.

A decade later, Micky (still b, c and u), now a student lawyer, is observing a trial of former SS guards including you know who. Here he learns of Hanna’s murky past. Needless to say she finishes up with a long prison sentence and in the next decades he, now played by Ralph Feinnes, agonises over the past whilst maintaining a long distance, almost anonymous, contact with her. Was she unwillingly locked into her War crimes or had she no alternative? All issues which many Germans are still in anguish over. Repercussions of WW2 still resonate down the generations. Oh, and why is the title ‘The Reader’? The act of reading and of being read to is of crucial significance in the film.

The film is based on the book by the major German author Bernhard Schlink. The english translation by Carol Brown Janeway is currently selling well.

Is it best to read the book before seeing the film, or visa versa? Or is it best to just see the film or just read the book or, indeed do neither? I was a statistician in my day job so I hope the reader will forgive me for naming all the possibilities here.

By the way, I enjoyed the film and plan to read the book and it's by chance it's happened that way round; so perhaps I didn't name all the possibilities in the last paragraph. Oh well, here’s a quote from the book:
‘Why does what was beautiful suddenly shatter in hindsight because it concealed dark truths?’

The acting was excellent, but after her recent performance at the golden balls (or whatever) ceremony I reckon that Kate Winslet should stick to the day job.

Jane Eyre and Brontë country

My reading of this book crept up on me almost by accident.


I became interested in the Brontë sisters during a visit to Haworth, the West Yorkshire village where the three sisters grew up. Haworth milks the Brontë connection to the full but in reasonably good taste. Contrast the Beatles Russian dolls (and so on and so on) in Liverpool.


I and my wife, Anne, recently spent a great weekend based in Haworth. There are a couple of good restaurants in the village and excellent walking possibilities in the area now known as Brontë Country (even the signposts are labelled in Japanese). The Haworth village web site is well worth a browse. We stayed at a spot-on and spotless B&B, called The Thyme House, run by a very welcoming young couple, Angela Cartwright and Steve Moffatt.

We had a 10 mile or so walk in the Brontë country in sharp frosty weather. We wandered about the Haworth main/only street and walked past the Brontë Parsonage Museum. Anne read up a bit on the Brontë sisters. We realised that neither of us had ever read a Brontë book. I’m already getting sick of the word Brontë and have taken the drastic decision not to use it again in this blog. I decided to read Jane Eyre by Charlotte B. I have now read the book and next offer you a few snippets of what I thought of it.

The story unfolds through the words of the main character Jane Eyre. The book was first published in 1847 so it is unsurprising that the style of writing is quite different to that of contemporary literature. Landscapes, houses, objects and the look and the character of people are presented in meticulous detail. Jane has a hard life. Both her parents are dead and she is neglected in the care of an aunt and her three children. The hard aunt and her overindulged children make Jane feel like an outcast and an unwanted nuisance. Nevertheless, Jane has an amazingly strong inner will and character. On the first two pages, when she has been rejected by the other three spoilt brats over a trivial, harmless incident, Jane inquires of her aunt: ‘What does Bessie say I have done?’ The old sour puss replies: ‘Jane, I don’t like cavillers or questioners: besides there is something truly forbidding in a child taking up her elders in that manner. Be seated somewhere, and until you can speak pleasantly, remain silent.’

My point is that, at the outset, Jane demonstrates that she has balls (a contemporary term for strong will, courage). She can stand up for herself. After some years in this horrible environment she gets sent to a cheapo boarding school where she is half starved and further intimidated by the staff. I don’t say bullied because inwardly she is never broken and there always comes a point when she stands up for herself. Fortunately, one of the teachers is warm-hearted and leads Jane to a quite decent education. From the age of about 15 to 17 she becomes a teacher at the school and is gradually gaining some self-worth, although she always makes clear that she is a slight, pale creature and not at all beautiful. I wonder if the term ‘plain Jane’ stems from Jane Eyre? She then, with great courage, strides out into the real world and takes a job as governess of a young French girl and, soon after, the infamous Mr Rochester enters the arena. Later still, another male suitor/influence on her life emerges and the rest of the book very expertly unfolds the complicated tale to a logical, convincing and clear conclusion. When you read the book you will find out if this is happy, neutral or disastrous for Miss J.

I urge you to read Jane Eyre. When you get used to the style of the novel you will find that every word counts and you will get to understand the nature of all the characters involved. So, when Jane is once again facing a predicament or sticky situation you will try to work out for yourself what course of action she will take. The author Sarah Waters describes Jane Eyre as:

‘One of the most perfectly structured novels of all time’

See if you agree with the illustrious Ms Waters.