ypsi~dixit

I did, however, enjoy a nice conversation Thursday morning with a bus guy who asked me if I'd ever seen the movie. I said no, and he went on to praise Daniel Day-Lewis's performance in it and recommended it. I in turn praised the accessibility of the book, given its era, and said it was easy to read and enjoyably meaty. We parted with me agreeing to see the movie and he agreeing to read the book. One of those nice bus conversations.

from an Ebert review of LOTM:

"It is also inspired, of course, by the novel by James Fenimore Cooper, whose frontier fantasies were completely demolished in an hilarious essay by Mark Twain, who noted that whenever the plot required a twig to be stepped on, a Cooper character was able to find a twig and step on it, no matter what the difficulty."

Heh. True.

I've never read the book. I did see the movie years ago. It's pure shite. Blech.
I LOVE Mark Twain's essays. I've never been able to read his novels (altho it's been many years since I've tried), but the essays rock. I might just have to dig them out.
I am treating myself to something really brain cushy: an autobiography by Gene Wilder. Seems like it'd be mindless and interesting.
Besides, my daughter LOVES Young Frankenstein and Willy Wonka (which we've not read yet~ but just finished Roald Dahl's, The Twits~very funny!). Want to learn more about the kind-eyed man with the wacky curls.

Amanda: Ebert did say, in so many words, that it was a somewhat superficial treatment of the book and kind of Hollywoodized.

Gene Wilder is a rather amazing person, full of strength. I heard an interview with him on the Terri Gross show (?) some time ago and he spoke movingly of his efforts to help his wife go through cancer, if I remember right. He struck me as a compassionate, melancholy, reflective sage of sorts.

I liked LOTM, though the characters are pretty unbelieveable. It's a great study in early American beliefs about race, nature, and gender. Not bad as an adventure story.

The movie did suck, I agree.

Shupac: You're right. It's a great study on early attitudes on race, nature, and gender; good point.

But, yeah, the characters are a tad cartoonish, are they not? Could be a result of the time in which it was written but--still.

I'm rethinking my vow to see the movie, though, based on your and Amanda's comments.

I had to laugh at your abandoning the book in the middle. Personally, I came close to throwing it against a wall when I tried to read it many years ago. I wanted to strangle Alice. Plus, I found it contrived in many places -- which now I learn was also Twain's opinion. Compared with, say, Herman Melville, Coooper's writing is much more accessible, but the situations and characters drove me crazy.

For Amanda, I recommend "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court" as the Twain novel to start with. Fish out of water stories are always good for a laugh.

We read LOTM out loud and I remember that at one point, we re-read an entire 50 page section twice without even realizing it--the action in the middle of the book was so stereotypical and repetitive. However, we persevered and in the end, I was glad we read it. I thought it got better towards the end, btw.

It was not only a great study of race, nature, and gender, but it was the foundational epic on which all the other adventure stories were based. Ironically, that fact can make the original seem clicheed. That's why some people who don't know any better don't like Lord of the Rings -- they don't realize that every sci fi epic they ever read was based on the format the Tolkien devised...