There are some things I do that I just won't admit to. That's the difference between you and me I guess.
Movies, books, tv
- Thread starter zeke4ahs
- Start date
Lol. I’m an open book. I’m also rewatching The Wire and reading Ta-Nehisi Coates’ novel to attempt to keep my brain active. But yeah I know, it’s embarrassing. I used to make fun of people like me.
For those that care, Hamilton will be streamed on Disney Plus starting July 3. I can watch Hamilton in addition to my yearly 1776, it will be a great July 4 celebration.
Today I read Never Let Me Go, from famed Kazuo Ishiguro. It's easy to see why it got the praise it did. Set during an alternate late 20th century, it doesn't take long to understand the characters are living in a situation far outside the bounds of anything we should recognize as normal, and yet Ishiguro uses their stories to explore issues of jealousy, forgiveness and mortality in ways that speak directly to the reader.
It was a finalist for the 2006 Arthur C. Clarke Award, although I doubt most people would readily label it as "science fiction." The one science fiction-y element of the story isn't even all that fantastical, although it is central to the plot, so I'd say it still qualifies under the Asimov rules.
Anyway, the real compelling aspect of the novel is the way in which the characters, placed in a situation the reader recognizes as both hopeless and hopelessly unfair, seem to easily resign themselves to their fate. During the last third of the novel, I often found myself asking why the protagonist doesn't try to escape. Maybe drive off to the highlands and disappear. Or maybe go public and make a stink. Do something to try the shake the foundations of the system that has her trapped. But the possibility doesn't even cross her mind. Her world is what it is, and when she does try some measure of protest, it's only in the form of some semi-rogue pushing and prodding from within, and when it doesn't work, when she finally learns the final truth, she sort of just shrugs and says, "Oh well."
From the reader's point of view, her response to her own situation makes no sense whatsoever, but Ishiguro does a good job demonstrating that it makes sense for her, and in doing so, attempts to shed some light on what would make sense for us, as well.
Definitely a recommend.
It was a finalist for the 2006 Arthur C. Clarke Award, although I doubt most people would readily label it as "science fiction." The one science fiction-y element of the story isn't even all that fantastical, although it is central to the plot, so I'd say it still qualifies under the Asimov rules.
Anyway, the real compelling aspect of the novel is the way in which the characters, placed in a situation the reader recognizes as both hopeless and hopelessly unfair, seem to easily resign themselves to their fate. During the last third of the novel, I often found myself asking why the protagonist doesn't try to escape. Maybe drive off to the highlands and disappear. Or maybe go public and make a stink. Do something to try the shake the foundations of the system that has her trapped. But the possibility doesn't even cross her mind. Her world is what it is, and when she does try some measure of protest, it's only in the form of some semi-rogue pushing and prodding from within, and when it doesn't work, when she finally learns the final truth, she sort of just shrugs and says, "Oh well."
From the reader's point of view, her response to her own situation makes no sense whatsoever, but Ishiguro does a good job demonstrating that it makes sense for her, and in doing so, attempts to shed some light on what would make sense for us, as well.
Definitely a recommend.
Yeah, I watched the first episode of Space Force. I don't think I even smiled.
I smiled, but it wasn't very funny. Might try one more episode just because of who's in it, but only one more.
So it sounds like it is time to watch Spaceballs.
Tried the new Jerry Seinfeld stand-up special he has on Netflix. I was a bit intrigued by it because in an interview he gave in his promo media tour for it that I read, he mentioned that it is likely his last performance. He said he's just not into the business side of the business anymore, and that all he cares about is the actual performance and interaction with his audience. So I thought, cool I'll check out his last performance.
I got about 10 minutes into it and realized that nothing I had seen or heard up to that point was remotely funny. He was kind of condescending, and generally not funny at all. I bailed out on it. Anyone else have the same reaction?
As I thought about it more, I came to realize that he didn't have much to do (on screen at least) with what I absolutely loved about "Seinfeld."
I got about 10 minutes into it and realized that nothing I had seen or heard up to that point was remotely funny. He was kind of condescending, and generally not funny at all. I bailed out on it. Anyone else have the same reaction?
As I thought about it more, I came to realize that he didn't have much to do (on screen at least) with what I absolutely loved about "Seinfeld."
Seinfeld was genius. I got the same impression as you from his comedians drinking coffee in cars or whatever. Just seemed arrogant and too full of himself. I got where I didn’t much care for him and have no interest in his latest stand up. Last season of Larry David was great, as an aside.
I'm about 1/2 way through We Will Rise about the UE plane crash. Great book.
The first half goes into the history or Evansville, the university (college to university), the basketball program, and the passing of the torch from Arad Mcutchan to Bobby Watson (detour through Jerry Sloan).
The first half goes into the history or Evansville, the university (college to university), the basketball program, and the passing of the torch from Arad Mcutchan to Bobby Watson (detour through Jerry Sloan).
I'm finally getting into audiobooks now as a way to make my commute more palatable. Currently listening to Astrophysics for People in a Hurry. Currently in chapter 6. Love it so far.
I just finished the Audible version of A Time for Trumpets on the Battle of the Bulge. It was simply outstanding, though I believe the book version would be even better because Audible has issues with maps. Mainly, it can't at all display them. The author says the trope that Americans threw down their weapons and ran is totally wrong. Sure, some individuals did. But at the unit level the American Army extracted a far heavier toll on the Germans than the Germans expected and set the timetable back from the very first hours.
One interesting thing I had never heard before, many Germans suspected in involvement in war crimes in Malmedy and other places in the Bulge were tortured, and other abuses, to get information for the trial. Before he had fame for other reasons, the chief person inside the US fighting for their release was a Senator named Joseph McCarthy. Almost all would have their sentences greatly reduced.
One interesting thing I had never heard before, many Germans suspected in involvement in war crimes in Malmedy and other places in the Bulge were tortured, and other abuses, to get information for the trial. Before he had fame for other reasons, the chief person inside the US fighting for their release was a Senator named Joseph McCarthy. Almost all would have their sentences greatly reduced.
I've never gotten into audio books. They seem like fishing with worms or riding an electric bicycle.
Just to passive for me. When listening to an audio book, my mind will often respond to something that's said and I'll be off to the races on a different topic and miss the audio feed. Some of the programs I attended about communicating in a trial pointed out that the average length of time somebody will listen without a wandering mind is 20 seconds. That's about right for me. I don't have that problem reading or watching movies and plays.
Just started Ashlee Vance's biography of Elon Musk. Looks promising. The world of creativity and entrepreneurship is much more meaningful and exciting that the things that dominate the news in 2020. It's truly unfortunate that the Space X story was knocked out of our consciousness by other things.
Good review Goat. Not that I've read it but after reading your post, I want to.
I've never gotten into audio books. They seem like fishing with worms or riding an electric bicycle.
I love audible. When I ran in my youth, I wore headphones and listened to music. I loved to run on tracks and just focus on the music and run on autopilot, I never understood why people loved cars, dogs, curbs.
Now that I cannot run, my dream is to hop on a treadmill and walk while zoning out. I will be returning to the gym soon and am looking forward to doing that again. When I have a book I love, it is great motivation to only listen during a walk.
I dunno. Back in the day when I bicycled 3+ hours at a time, I never felt like I needed audio. In fact I think audio while bicycling is dangerous. In those days I used to think about cases or teenaged kids. Now that I walk for an hour or so a few days a week, I don’t have audio either. I’m never at a loss of things to think about.
I’ve always loved audible for both driving and working out. Like COH my mind does have a tendency to wander though. For that reason I mostly listen to nonfiction. Listening to Bruce Springsteen autobiography now. Bonus points: he narrates!
Yeah, I'm not sure I can do a fiction audiobook. That's why I went with the physics book. Once I'm through it, I'll probably go to another science book, or maybe history. I'll probably keep ingesting my fiction the old-fashioned way.
What is the difference between fiction and nonfiction audio in terms of holding one’s attention?
I'm not really thinking about attention as much as enjoyability. It's probably just conditioning. I don't listen to the radio for entertainment. I listen for information. Neil de Grasse Tyson talking about physics is a lot closer to NPR than, say, a reading of a Stephen King novel.
I'm sure I could get used to it eventually, but there's something about fiction that causes me to want to see the words with my eyes.
I think you're depriving yourself of opportunities.
For example, Adrian McKinty has written a wonderful series about Sean Duffy, a Catholic officer in the Royal Ulster Constabulary during The Troubles in Northern Ireland. Many of his fellow officers in the RUC would happily see him dead because he's Catholic, while many of his fellow Catholics would happily see him dead because he's in the the RUC. The audiobooks are read by Gerard Doyle, whose wonderful Irish accent makes listening to the story a delight while also making it more immersive.
Virtually anything read by the estimable John Lee is probably good. I've both read and listened to China Miéville's The City and the City, but Lee's audiobook is outstanding. His vaguely European voice makes Miéville's vaguely Balkan future cities seem more present.
JK Rowlings' outstanding Cormoron Strike series is exceptionally well read by the British Actor Robert Glenister. Bernard Cornwell's entertaining Sharpe series -- about a British soldier who rises through the ranks at the turn of the 19th century -- is perfectly expressed in Frederick Davidson's very British accent. Don Winslow's drug war Border Trilogy is exceptionally well read by Roy Porter. And back to John Lee, he's great in Dewey Lambdin's Alan Lewrie series, about a young man who ascends to become a captain in the Royal Navy during the Napoleonic wars. Stephen Shanahan is great in Jane Harper's murder mysteries set in the Australian outback. Et al.
I love books, and I'm sure all of these great stories would have been wonderful on the printed page. Maybe the page would be better. (I've both read and listened to Lonesome Dove, and it was better on the page.) And ambitious books like David Mitchell's Cloud Atlas probably have to be on the page. But listening to the right reader read to you can be its own kind of experience for the vast bulk of good fiction that's out there.
Last edited:
Thanks for the push. Maybe I'll give some of those a try. I've certainly been meaning to read The City & the City, so maybe I'll try to download the audiobook of that one as a test case.
Mieville dazzles me in The City and the City by making a difficult premise not just a matter of plausible deniability, but a sophisticated and intelligently constructed alternative reality that serves as the backbone of the entire story.
You may not like it. There are lots of great writers I don't get traction with. The good news, though, is that there are lots of great writers, so no one has to read anything they don't like.
For me, a fiction book if you zone out for awhile you probably miss a major plot point. In nonfiction and biographies, it’s rarely a big deal. I’m fiction books I have to replay all the time but nonfiction I can usually figure out what I missed.
I get that. That’s why I like reading on my Kindle. I can run searches and reread stuff. I suffer from the curse of a career of reading statutes and contracts; I pour over every word. My stoker devours fiction without reading everything, don’t know how she does it.
Until now, I have only done non-fiction. But since most of my non-fiction is historical, the missing maps are driving me crazy so I am switching Audible to fiction with The Plague by Camus and then reading non-fiction.
Thanks for that. I have read Hornblower and Bolitho (same idea but set during the Revolutionary War). I just read the 1st Putnam book, American version the 1st set in the 1st Barbery War. I will try Lewrie on audio.
I’m the same way. I rarely read anything other than fiction. For the better part of 20 years I’d read a book a week. I’d calendar when my favorite authors (cormac McCarthy, Larry McMurtry, Richard Ford, Richard Russo etc) would schedule their releases and pick it up that day. The last five or so years I’ve gotten completely away from reading. Netflix, prime, Hulu, sports series, satellite. I’ve replaced books with tv. Dumb. Because you don’t get the same pleasure as holding a book.
Last edited:
I just started watching Laurel Canyon on EPIX. Finished the first episode and am halfway thru #2. These are the people I listened to growing up, and hearing stories in their own words about how a lot of interactions and classic songs went down is incredible. The cover photo from the CSN album with all 3 of them sitting on the couch on the porch of a dilapidated house is a prime example.
They had driven around Hollywood and came upon a deserted house and felt the setting envisioned the style they were looking to convey. The photographer just took a bunch of random shots and when they got back to the studio the one they all agreed was best was all 3 on the couch. The only problem was they were out of order with Nash first, when according to the name it should have been Crosby.
So they decided to go back the next day and reshoot in the correct order, but when they got back to the lot the house had been bulldozed and was gone. So they went with the original, and one of the most iconic covers in Rock was created...
Similarly, the way they actually got together to form CSN was another stroke of fate. Crosby produced Joni's debut album, and both he and Stills lived in Laurel Canyon as did Joni. Meanwhile, Nash who didn't really know Crosby or Stills had met Joni and fallen hard for her. One day he visited Joni at her Laurel Canyon home, and Crosby and Stills were there rehearsing songs for the new "Everly Bros duo" type act they were putting together. Over joints, they got to know each other and Stills played "You Don't have to Cry" with the pair singing...
Nash kept asking them to play it again and after the 3rd time he joined in and they were all amazed at what they had created. The album went to #1, and they needed to tour but neither Crosby or Nash could play guitar well enough to sustain live shows, and Stills couldn't just overdub live and play all the instruments like he basically did on the CSN album. So Stills went to Elliot Roberts and convinced him they had to hire Neil, they played two shows live in Chicago and then headed to Woodstock.
When they went back to the road, the shows had a standardized formula where they would each have a solo spot where they'd do two of their own songs. One night Dylan was there to watch and instead of doing the standard two songs Stills decided to show off and did five of his songs in a row.
That was the first night they experienced the type of tension that would eventually rip them apart. Recounting the story Nash said he was so furious that during the intermission he lit into Stills and Stills was so angry that he basically crushed the beer can he was holding to the point where it exploded everywhere. They then went back out and somehow channeled that anger into one of the most intense sessions they ever played together and put on a fantastic show. Unfortunately, it was a harbinger of rough times to come as these four superegos basically allowed their own jealousies to rip apart what was briefly the best supergroup in US History...
They had driven around Hollywood and came upon a deserted house and felt the setting envisioned the style they were looking to convey. The photographer just took a bunch of random shots and when they got back to the studio the one they all agreed was best was all 3 on the couch. The only problem was they were out of order with Nash first, when according to the name it should have been Crosby.
So they decided to go back the next day and reshoot in the correct order, but when they got back to the lot the house had been bulldozed and was gone. So they went with the original, and one of the most iconic covers in Rock was created...
Similarly, the way they actually got together to form CSN was another stroke of fate. Crosby produced Joni's debut album, and both he and Stills lived in Laurel Canyon as did Joni. Meanwhile, Nash who didn't really know Crosby or Stills had met Joni and fallen hard for her. One day he visited Joni at her Laurel Canyon home, and Crosby and Stills were there rehearsing songs for the new "Everly Bros duo" type act they were putting together. Over joints, they got to know each other and Stills played "You Don't have to Cry" with the pair singing...
Nash kept asking them to play it again and after the 3rd time he joined in and they were all amazed at what they had created. The album went to #1, and they needed to tour but neither Crosby or Nash could play guitar well enough to sustain live shows, and Stills couldn't just overdub live and play all the instruments like he basically did on the CSN album. So Stills went to Elliot Roberts and convinced him they had to hire Neil, they played two shows live in Chicago and then headed to Woodstock.
When they went back to the road, the shows had a standardized formula where they would each have a solo spot where they'd do two of their own songs. One night Dylan was there to watch and instead of doing the standard two songs Stills decided to show off and did five of his songs in a row.
That was the first night they experienced the type of tension that would eventually rip them apart. Recounting the story Nash said he was so furious that during the intermission he lit into Stills and Stills was so angry that he basically crushed the beer can he was holding to the point where it exploded everywhere. They then went back out and somehow channeled that anger into one of the most intense sessions they ever played together and put on a fantastic show. Unfortunately, it was a harbinger of rough times to come as these four superegos basically allowed their own jealousies to rip apart what was briefly the best supergroup in US History...
Did anyone watch Grant (3-part docudrama on U.S. Grant)? It's on the History Channel and is based on the bestselling book by Ron Chernow. Despite living not too far from his birthplace in Point Pleasant, Ohio (which I have visited), I did not know much about him. The show is really good, and has a nice blend of very realistic dramatization along with the typical documentary dialogue.
Perhaps my only beef is that I might have liked it done in more than 3 episodes (2 hours each). Then again, make it much longer and you have something akin to Ken Burns' The Civil War.
The History Channel, despite having quite a bit of trash, does do some great work when they put a little effort into it.
Perhaps my only beef is that I might have liked it done in more than 3 episodes (2 hours each). Then again, make it much longer and you have something akin to Ken Burns' The Civil War.
The History Channel, despite having quite a bit of trash, does do some great work when they put a little effort into it.
I heard a lot of very good things about it on the Civil War forums. I need to watch it, I refused when it was aired as I was certain it would involve pawn stores, a UFO, or Hitler living in South America. Now that people have confirmed none of that is there, I should give it a try,
I need to visit his birthplace, I have been to his St Louis home and enjoyed the visit.
It's such a shame that they ruined that network as when it first started it was great but shlock tv apparently gets better ratings and ad revenue.
They wanted to expand past older white males. I get that from a business perspective. But assuming women do not like history seems crazy. And why on earth they think women like UFO's or pawn shops is just as crazy. But Pawn Stars is their highest rated show, so they know more than I do. I just suspect it is still old, white men watching.
This is how I'm reminded that YouTube TV doesn't carry the History Channel. I hadn't previously thought that was a problem, but I'm sorry to miss the Grant documentary. I think he's vastly underrated.
Yes, he is often taken for grant-ed.
