Archive for March, 2004
Book Review: Outlander by Diana Gabaldon

If one had a good editor who really wanted to sell one’s work, said editor might suggest the kind of gimmick that Diana Gabaldon uses in her torrid Outlander. One turns in a well-written, but pedestrian romance story full of fantasy sex and romantic environs, only to have the editor suggest that maybe time travel would make this book more palatable to a wider range of audience.

So, one frames said historical romance in a time travel device, but instead of going science fiction with the time travel, one goes pixie dust and druidic on the tired device. A Stonehenge-esque ring of blarney surrounds our feisty, independent modern woman, Claire Randall, as she is swept back to the Braveheart-era Scottish highlands.

With a setup like that, it would be hard to write a boring novel, and Gabaldon has avoided that rather small likelihood. Instead, our initial groans are treated to a detailed and realistic depiction of Scotland and its inhabitants in the mid-18th century. Evoking the sights, sounds, and smells of that bucolic and deadly time, Gabaldon succeeds marvelously in making us forgot the terrible way we got here and lets us fully enjoy the complete world she has created. Furthermore, she populates that world with rogues, heroes, kindly mothers, and a despicable villain.

The fact that this villain is an ancestor of her husband provides the twist that brings this book above its initial intimations. The main characters musings on ancestry, familial/clan pride, and the place of women in the society she is thrown into allow us to stay engaged in the story and not just wrapped up in its effective telling. Gabaldon perfectly captures the Scottish brogue and lilt in the written dialog and uses her mastery of its tones to help solidify what might otherwise be cardboard cutout characters.

I don’t want to like this book. In reading it, I kept sensing that I was being tricked into reading something below me; that I would get to the last page and find some trademark of Harlequin. Either I am not as high-minded as I like to think, or there are greater ideas being held forth in this novel. Ideas of masculinity, honor, loyalty, and love are examined from many points of view and splayed upon like the rabbit on the spit in Castle Leoch.

Gabaldon deftly hides the turmoil of Claire’s fall from “liberated woman” in the many sex scenes in the novel. I was turned off by what seemed gratuitous sex that often occurred in the most unlikely of situations. It works on the one hand to show us how uptight are our attitudes toward such a natural act in the same way that Claire’s supposed modern liberation is shown to be less than liberal at all. This knowledge is not as enlightening as it seems as the darker side of the woman being relegated to provider of pleasure and solace peeks out around the sunlight of physical liberation. We sense that she has only traded one type of bondage for another.

In this way, Gabaldon has given us a quick, exciting read with truly likable and dislikable characters while examining and subverting some of our “modern” notions of the place of woman in the workplace, as warriors, and as strong members of a community.

Flash Cavalcade

Grand Theft America

Latest Book Purchases

Is it dumb to get excited about new books? We have a Book Warehouse in the outlet mall where I live. They get all kinds of books from bestsellers to artsy, small-press stuff. The prices are amazing, but it might be 9 months to a year before they get something that is on the bestseller charts today. They are some sort of closeout retailer, but newer, popular hardbacks are $8 and newer softbacks are around $5. So, if I wait a few months, I can get that book I really want for about 70% off its original price.

Anyway, these are the three books I bought last night:

- The Feel-Good Curriculum: The Dumbing Down of America’s Kids in the Name of Self-Esteem by Maureen Stout, Ph.D.
- Heliconia Spring by Brian W. Aldiss
- City of God by E. L. Doctorow

If you’ve read any of these, feel free to post a comment about them.

LlamaTail

This is a gansta sign for Weapons of Mass Distruction, dwang!

F1 and Champ Car Predictions 2004

Yes boys and girls, it’s that time of year. Winter is breaking and open wheel racing is about to get underway. Along with that come my predictions for how the season will shake down.

Last years predictions were… well, not so accurate. I did get one thing right when I said Champ Car driver Sebastien Bourdais would be a flop. He was. But I predicted Bruno Junqueira would win the championship. He did not.

We can’t all be perfect, and I’ve never been accused of being Jimmy the Greek here. (Throwback to you 80s era football fans.)

What we can look forward to in the big 04?

F1
Kimi Raikkonen will win the F1 championship. Michael Schumacher will be in second and Juan Pablo Montoya will be third.

Fernando Alonso will continue to be the angel. They’ll refer to him as the next great one at least 45 times again this year.

Rubens Barrichello will be treated like “that other driver at Ferrari,” while Jenson Button will be talked about a lot because he’s not Jacques Villeneuve.

My favorite F1 driver, Juan Pablo Montoya won’t do so well this year. I predict a good race or two, but his differences with Williams BMW will show as the season goes on.

Champ Car
It will be Paul Tracy and Bruno Junqueira fighting it out for the championship, and again, I’m going to predict Bruno to win it.

There will be no big personality stories this year, though they will try to make a few. The big story will be ticket sales. Expect Champ Car to put on a full PR blitz at every race about how many people are coming and how popular they are, then try to keep the half empty stands off camera.

How will it go down? We?ll find out starting on Sunday with the opening of the F1 season in Melbourne.

The Passion of the Christ

Mel Gibson’s portrayal of the last 12 hours of Jesus’ life in the film The Passion of the Christ is raising hot-button issues and discussions. I will begin this column by letting everyone know that I have not seen the movie, nor do I actually plan to. But as you will read, the discussion I am about to start is not reliant on actually seeing the film.

One of the ancillary discussions this movie evokes, and where I will be spending most of my time in this column, is that of who killed Jesus.

Mel Gibson has said repeatedly that he is not attempting to lay blame of the death of Jesus as anyone’s feet. But let’s be honest with each other here, when this topic comes up so does “the Jews killed Jesus” line.

So, did the Jews kill Jesus? Was Ciaphus a Jew? Sure, and he held the hasty trial in his house. But didn’t Judas actually turn Jesus over to the Romans? Yet I never hear anyone say the Apostles killed Jesus. And judging all Jews or the Jewish population based on a few (like Caiphus) is equivalent to saying, “A woman cut me off on the freeway this morning, thus all women are bad drivers.”

But let’s get to the point. We all know who killed Jesus.

The central tenet of Christianity is that Jesus died and rose, thus giving those who believe an open door to heaven. That being said, Jesus killed Jesus.

He drew a lot of attention to himself by entering Jerusalem on a mule — a militant act. Even Napoleon, when entering Jerusalem, dismounted his horse. And upending the tables in the temple certainly also drew eyes his way. Simply, if he wanted to go about not being noticed or draw anger of the local authorities, he certainly didn’t do a good job.

Reading it from a pure literature slant, Jesus knew what he was doing. And from a religious standpoint, he knew he was going to be put to death, as that was going to be the final battle.

And what about the violence of his death? That is actually why I’m not going to see the movie — I don’t care to see two-hours of senseless violence. Yes, senseless. From the reviews I read and from talking to friends that have seen the movie, there is no Passion narrative in this film. Which begs the question, why is it called The Passion of the Christ? It’s a two-hour torture scene.

In all honesty, does the nature of Jesus’ death have anything to do with the significance of his death?

Mel answered this charge by saying, “Kill Bill.” I guess he’s trying to tell us that Kill Bill is a violent move, and in comparison his movie isn’t. OK, Mel. What if we asked Janet Jackson if her performance at the Super Bowl was indecent, and she replied, “Debbie Does Dallas“? Does that mean her performance is not indecent in comparison?