Accidental Intertexuality

As the old saying goes: “When in Greece, read lot of books.” (It might not be an actual saying, but I still think it’s the way to go.)

On our two-week holiday I managed to read a staggering seven books. Which really isn’t too shabby, if you ask me. Also something rather amusing happened while I was reading, which is the main reason why I’ll give you five of them in one single humongous monster review.

The one I started off with was Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil, by John Berendt. I assume many of you know the movie that was based on this book, but Iet me say a few words about the content anyway. For one thing, this is a narrative non-fiction book, not a crime novel, as many of you might think. While it somewhat centers around the murder of Danny Hansford by eccentric antiques dealer/millionaire Jim Williams and the subsequent trial, it is just as much about the city of Savannah and many of its more peculiar inhabitants. While I enjoyed the story of Williams, who is sad and inscrutable in equal measure, I was looking forward to the other characters just as much. The citizens of Savannah, at least those that Berendt chooses to write about, are one and all fantastically peculiar. It is mesmerizing, though admittedly in some cases more like watching a train wreck than like anything else. There’s the guy who supposedly possesses enough poison to kill the entire city, the society lady that hasn’t left her bed in years… and the Lady Chablis. Oh, and what a character the Lady Chablis is. She is easily the best thing about the book, and while I am willing to believe that some of the anecdotes in the book might have been altered to suit the author’s needs, I believe every word that is written about her. If you’ve seen the movie, you know what I mean, for Chablis plays herself and she is, as Chablis would say, fabulous. All in all I highly recommend the book. It paints a vivid and lively picture of Savannah and all the strange creatures that reside within, and it manages the all-too-rare feat of being suddenly, genuinely touching when you least expect it.

Next up was The Fear Index, by Robert Harris. Let me say, on an unrelated note, that I love Robert Harris. The man has written three wonderful novels set in Ancient Rome, books which I wholeheartedly recommend both for their engaging stories and their factual accuracy (Ancient Rome being a subject about which I know a thing or two). He’s also a delight to listen to, as we found out the other month, when we accidentally stumbled upon a reading of his at our local bookstore. Now, if you think that this gushing praise of Harris is the lead-up to tearing his latest book into shreds, I’ll have to disappoint you. The Fear Index is a book about the current economic crisis. It is a book about capitlism, and not a positive one at that. (Most chapters open up with quotes from Darwin’s Origin of Species, which I found extra creepy as I was once forced to sit through an exceptionally misguided student presentation that tried to link the one to the other.) It is also the story of a physicist, Dr. Alex Hoffman, and of the hedge fund that he has created. The novel opens up with a quote from Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein: “Learn from me, if not by my precepts, at least by my example, how dangerous is the acquirement of knowledge.” The quote is fitting and not accidental, because The Fear Index explores themes of creation and responsibility. I forgive you if you now think that this is a book about an evil AI gone rogue, I had similar misgivings at one point or another, but let me assure you that it isn’t that simple at all. And I think this is where I should stop, lest I give away too much about the plot.

Thirdly (and this is where the funny bit starts) I read Solar, by Ian McEwan. Now, in all fairness this one should get a proper review of its own, because it was maybe not the most stupid, but the most intellectually offensive book that I read on this holiday. I’ll try to be brief. Solar is the story of Michael Beard, a Nobel-Prize-winning scientist past his prime (both physically and in the field of physics). Beard is, easily, the most dislikable character I’ve ever read about. He’s a womanizer, an egoist, lazy, arrogant and delusional. I could go on for a while, but I fear that all you will say is “duh, it’s a satire, of course he’s dislikable.” And yes, of course this is a work of fiction, and of comic fiction at that. Who’s to say that the dislikable prick can’t be the one who saves the world from global warming? And yet, and yet… it leaves a sour aftertaste. McEwan makes Beard so incompetent, so gross, that it seems like anything he touches is, by association, vile. Our protagonist treats his science like he treats his women: with studied, opportunistic contempt. I would have to re-read the book and write a far more detailed analysis to bring forth more satisfactory arguments than these, but all in all Solar seemed to ridicule climate change more than it warned of its dangers. That, on top of the unfair (and not to mention highly ironic) jabs at the futility of art in the face of such a calamity and the ham-handed attempts at taking on feminism (which backfire mightily and for all the wrong reasons in my opinion), makes for an unsatisfactory reading adventure. Or maybe I just don’t enjoy grossness as much as I should.

Oh yes, the funny, I almost forgot. At one point in Solar the protagonist, Michael Beard, is at a party. And, while sipping a glass of Chablis, he idly quotes Darwin’s Origin of the Species to impress some poor female or other. And I thought, what a funny coincidence… and the protagonist is a physicist too… weirder and weirder.

Book the fourth: Blonde Bombshell, by Tom Holt. I have some authors, Tom Holt among them, that I read primarily out of some sense of obligation to my younger self. Piers Anthony, Anne McCaffrey, Terry Goodkind, all these I am still reading because I stumbled upon them when I was fourteen and had no critical faculties whatsoever and I feel that I somehow owe it to myself to finish what I started (and in the case of Mr. Goodkind out of some sort of political/sadomasochistic/scientific interest.) Now, of all of the above I still find Tom Holt the most entertaining to read. True, the books are, as The Independent mildly put it, “undemanding”, and if you’ve read more than five you’ll find that there are more recurring themes than is good for them, but Holt also still manages to hit home with a lot of his jokes. And if I get a few good chuckles out of what is essentially an afternoon’s worth of reading, then I’m sort of happy. Blonde Bombshell isn’t overly complicated in terms of its plot, but still not easily summarized. Let me try: A race of canine aliens send a sentient bomb to planet Earth to destroy humanity, because we’ve been driving them insane by unwittingly sending radio waves to their planet. The bomb was preceded by another bomb, which vanished without achieving its mission objective. So the Mark II, being sentient, reasons that it should maybe figure out what happened to the Mark I before it does anything rash. Meanwhile on Earth, tech genius and multimillionaire Lucy Pavlov tries to figure out why she can’t remember anything prior to two years ago… and why she’s seeing unicorns. And then there’s George Stetchkin, an alcoholic physicist (another one!) who’s recruited by Lucy to figure it all out. And yes, he drinks Chablis in one scene, but he doesn’t like it. And then there are the two weird fellows, who might or might not be secret agents, or dogs, or maybe both. And… as I said, it’s not easily summarized. If you’re looking for an easy read with a few laughs I’d recommend Blonde Bombshell. It’s no Douglas Adams (by far) and those allergic to pop culture references might find an untimely end while reading it, but it’s far from the worst book I’ve ever read. It’s not even the worst Tom Holt I’ve ever read (that dubious honour goes to A Song for Nero). It’s inoffensive and brief and not even quite as predictable as expected. And I likes me a good pop culture reference now and then, so there.

And then, after three counts of Chablis and three counts of protagonist physicists, I thought that that might be the end of weird coincidences. That’s when I realized that the last book I had picked was Matter, by Iain Banks. Which was bound to contain lots of AIs and bombs, and even bomb AIs. And it did.

The book is part of the ongoing Culture series, which is not so much a continous story as a setting. I won’t say that this is the best Culture book that I’ve read so far. I won’t even say that I particularly liked Matter. My opinion about the book is a bit of a wibbly-wobbly grey area, I’m afraid. I like the story. I adore the scientific concepts it introduces and the science-is-our-friend-attitude which permeates the Culture books in general. I like the bits that are about people from a low-tech background entering a high-tech environment. I love the drones. If you’ve read any of the other culture books you’ll now have a vague idea of what I’m talking about. If you haven’t: do. Iain Banks’ Culture is sci-fi at its best. Whenever someone tells me that the genre contains nothing more than adolescent crap, this is what I use as a counterargument. The books are mature, philosophical, pro-science and all the while still fun. So now you’re wondering why I’m wibbly-wobbly about the book, yes? It’s because of the ending. I don’t want to spoil anything, the book is still worth reading, but the ending does a few things that, in a way, seem to negate a lot of what the books says and does. And that is a shame.

So, here we are. Five books, a lot of funny coincidences. I know that if you just try hard enough you can find a pattern in just about anything, but still… creepy, no? And if nothing else, this might give you some nice ideas about what to read next.

Crash Boom Bang

So I’ve been gone for a while. But this time I’ve got a really good excuse: I was hit by a car.

I’m currently working on a really, really long blog post about the accident itself, but also about the humiliation and absurdities that the German legal system puts the victim through in the aftermath. Some people say that you’ve got to experience everything at least once, but I can now say with some certainty that they’re full of s**t.

For now let’s say that the wounds have mostly healed, the scar is slowly fading and I’m back to blogging. I read a whole slew of interesting books, took oodles of photos and played games that need talking about. And life is also still happening. For now, here’s a picture of a butterfly.
Butterfly

The Sea Will Claim Everything in a Box

Our new game, The Sea Will Claim Everything, is out!

We’re both exhausted (Jonas a lot more than me), but we couldn’t be any prouder. The game will be available for the next two weeks as part of the Bundle in a Box, an adventure themed indie bundle. The bundle also supports a charity that focuses on helping children with autism or psychosis and their families and the Indie Dev Grant. So if you like the Lands of Dream, and adventure games and want to support a cool charity, then go and get the bundle now.

Was Tun?

Real WorkNow that my work on The Sea Will Claim Everything is done I’ll give blogging another try. Today I went to the new temporary exhibition at Senckenberg where I also work part-time. Tomorrow I’ll let you know what I thought. Hopefully I’ll still be working at Senckenberg after that.

Tommy and Creative Responsibility

[Note: I wrote this a couple of months ago, but I’ve been so busy with The Sea Will Claim Everything that I couldn’t even find the time to proofread it!]

A while ago we saw The Who’s Tommy at the English Theatre in Frankfurt. The English Theatre is, apparently, the biggest English-language theatre on the European mainland and has been showing high-quality plays and musicals since the late seventies. And before you ask: in terms of presentation their production of Tommy was really top-notch. I realize that few of you live around here, but if you do I really suggest that you give The Who’s Tommy at the English Theatre a go. The performers are all excellent, even if Leo Miles as the titular Tommy takes some getting used to. The theatre’s stage is tiny, but the set really makes the best of what space it has to work with, and the choreography is really nice too. So, yes, the show is really good and truly enjoyable.

Why then, if most of my readers are not from Frankfurt or even from Hessen, and thus don’t give a rat’s ass about the local theatre output, do I write about the English Theatre’s production of Tommy?

Well, here’s the thing. Although the show was excellently staged and I was truly touched by many of the performances, the affair as a whole left a bitter aftertaste. The Director, Ryan McBride, has made some changes to the original show and these changes range from cowardly to unfortunate to downright vile.

There’s small stuff, like changing the timing of Tommy’s parents’ wedding, his birth and his father’s capture by Russian forces during World War II. It’s nothing too consequential, nothing that upsets either the pacing of the show nor the intended message (which can be a terrible word when applied to artistic output; why do we always need to boil everything down to one easily-digestible slogan?), nothing I can easily find fault with.

And then there are some things that are a little more tricky. The hawker, a pimp who tries to sell one of his whores as a miracleworker (a highly ambiguously-phrased song), is transformed into a priest. The whore is in this context Mary. The song receives connotations of blind religious devotion, faith healing and (much less overt) sexual abuse. Acid Queen, a song that in the original Broadway version (not on the concept album, though) immediately followed The Hawker, is moved to the second act, when Tommy is already played by an adult. Again all direct allusions to prostitution are removed and the whole scene is set up as part of a voodoo-like ritual.

Now, first of all: sexual abuse of children by members of the church is a real problem. It is a problem worth discussing and I think art is a good way of bringing public attention to these atrocities. That having been said: what’s with all the making the show child-safe? The acid queen sequence in the original is a highly disturbing scene, in which a father is so desperate as to bring his eleven year old son to a prostitute in order to get any reaction out of him. Ultimately the father changes his mind, taking Tommy with him before anything can happen, but the build-up to that scene is more than a little graphic. I can’t bring myself to really disapprove of the changes made to the story, not in this case, but it all feels a little too safe. Too wholesome, if that is the right word.

And then there is the big one. The deal breaker. The one thing that made me hate the show (briefly – now my feelings are just thoroughly mixed: it was nice up until that point).

The show has three or four new pieces of spoken text, which weren’t included in the original Broadway run. A doctor Schofield seems to be examining Tommy at the beginning of the first act, then there is a break for dialogue in the actual examination scene in the second act. And again at the end. In that last one we learn that Tommy’s miraculous recovery, his rise to fame and subsequent realization that he shouldn’t try to be a messiah, is all a dream. Or a hallucination. Or whatever. It isn’t exactly clear who is dreaming this, essentially the plot of the entire second act. Is it Tommy himself? His mother? We don’t know and it ultimately isn’t important to my criticism.

Tommy, the original Broadway show, had a very positive ending. A good message, if you want. Tommy realizes that the cult of personality that has formed around him is a bad thing, because there is nothing that people can or should learn from his disability, except that he is better off for being healthy now. In the end he goes home and reconciles with his parents. Nice.

In the English Theatre’s version Tommy is still catatonic in the end and nothing is to be gained from this two-hour experience except that catatonic people will stay catatonic and there is nothing to be done about it. Now go away and wallow in nihilistic thoughts!

We had a long talk after the show, about the changed ending. Was it a) good b) bad and/or c) unethical? I personally think the change doesn’t do the show any favours. I also think that Pete Townshend and Desmond McAnuff didn’t add a more positive ending to their 1993 stage version (the album is a lot more ambiguous) for fun. They wanted to say something about the human condition, about hope, about endurance. And Ryan McBride has shat all over that. Does he have the right to do so? From a legal perspective the answer is, sadly, a resounding yes. But I think that in terms of creative responsibility he has committed a great crime.

Imagine: a new translation of The Lord of the Rings is published in Germany, the translator changes the ending and now Gollum actually gets the ring, hands it to Sauron and together they bomb Lothlorien back to the Stone Age.

So shame on you, English Theatre.