house of the spirits....again....i don't know what happened to the orginal review

Don't mess with him, apparently he can use a bazooka




I thought I already put this one up, but it appears to have vanished, so here it is again. Anyways, i am back from vacation at last, and this time I'm actually going to be working on a week long article on the paladin class, so no weekly updates until Friday/Sat if my computer doesn't screw up

The House of the Spirits

The House of the Spirits by Isabel Allende is considered a classic of South America literature. It tells the story of a whole family over the course of four generations This allows the author show events from many different viewpoints, but the long span of time can make the reader feel detached from the events and characters . In order for a multigenerational book to work, the characters and storyline must be interesting . The House of the Spirits fails in this because the characters feel more like devices, the writing is unemotional, and the book provides a very biased perspective in all of the events in the novel. In short, the novel makes a series of amateurish mistakes when it comes to telling a moving story.

An essential element to any fictional story is to show rather than dictate the events within the story, so that the reader feels almost as if they are experiencing the events themselves. In The House of the Spirits, however, all of the events are dictated by a distant third person narrator, who simply tells the reader how each character feels, what happens and what they are thinking. An example of is when Ferula is confessing her love for? Clara to her priest, an infatuation that might be lesbian in nature. (100) Ferula, a deeply religious person, hasn’t yet come to terms with her love. Her confession could be a moment of drama and suspense as reveal more about her personality. Instead: “Ferula could spend half an hour on the details. She was a gifted narrator who knew exactly how to explain without too many gestures, painting a scene so true to life that her listener felt as if he was there.” (100) What did she feel when she spied upon Clara and Esteban together having sex, did guilt or doubt plagued her? And if she is supposedly such a good storyteller, why does the narrator let the reader judge her story telling ability based upon what she says and the priest’s reactions? Compare this to a critic remarking, “Mark Anthony makes a very good speech where he gains the public support for his cause” vs. actually showing the Mark Anthony’s speech on the murder of Caesar.

Another painful example of this is the romance of Blanca with Pedro Tercero. Considering the unusual circumstances surrounding their relationship, the details are what can make the readers become involved in the lives of the two characters. How do they talk to each other, how does there relationship grow, what are some of the arguments/conversations they have? But instead, we are just told events. “During the time that they were separated, Blanca and Pedro Tercero exchanged burning letters,” which tells us nothing. What makes them “burning”? How are they written, what do they say? These are the defining traits of the characters, but they are just events dictated to us, with about as much emotional impact as a history textbook.

How an author treats her characters can tell a lot about her. Characters exist to play a role within a story, all of them are made for a specific reason but a good author is able to create the illusion that the character exists as his or her own person while fitting them within their role. Jim in Huckleberry Finn obviously exists to serve as a device to drive the plot, as well as a metaphor for African Americans who are searching for freedom, and yet, within that role, he has his own distinct personality, shown in his interactions with other characters. Aaron in “Titus Andronicus” exists to serve as a ruthless antagonists of the play who cause chaos and suffering, and yet, despite that, he displays some very human characteristics, such as his love for his son and disgust at the Roman people. A good character is one that feels like a real human within the context of the story, but the characters in The House of the Spirits are so obvious in their existence for the sake of the plot that they are totally unappealing, both from a metaphorical and physical standpoint. Esteban is the most obvious example of this, serving as a metaphor for capitalism, the upper class and oppression, and serving as the main antagonist for the story. Every personality trait, almost every action he takes, is just to raise more antagonism towards him, every single time he appears in the book he is presented in a villainous manner, with the exception of his final meeting with Soto. For example,

Esteban had bouts of despair because Clara treated him with the same kindness she displayed towards everybody else…At times he would lose his patience an furiously shake her awake, shouting the most furious accusations he could think of then he would end up weeping in her lap and begging for forgiveness (129).

Even in the passage explaining his motives, Esteban is show as brutish and out of control, his last out birth seems almost as if Allende added it to prevent him from becoming too sympathetic. This makes hating him easy, a nice simplistic divide between good and evil, black and white, because every character apart from Soto views him as villain. Esteban could be a more multilayered character. For example, if Esteban was actually understanding of his wife, and never hurt her, but simply couldn’t understand her or her magic, he would be a frustrated and conflicted character held back by his own pride and lack of creativity rather than just a brute who can’t control himself. Or if he was a gentlemen with men of his class, well read, funny, intelligent-- but a horrible person when allowed to use the power he had, it would be more realistic, as many dictators and oppressors were said to be reasonable in person (Napoleon, Louis XVI, Genghis Khan, and Julius Caesar being just some examples). The class dynamic is simplified, as well, down to Communist=good, Capitalist=bad. You have to use a strong hand on the poor devils--that’s the only language they understand. The minute they get soft, they lose their respect, but I’ve always been fair…How are they supposed to know politics if they don’t even know where they live? They are capable of voting for the Communists, just like the miners in the North, who might push the whole country over the brink with their strikes….What I would do is send in some troops and let some bullets fly to teach them a lesson.” (64)

With this speech, Esteban explains his motives, and what reader would not sympathize with the Communists as a result? This political strawman portrayal is really simplifying the issue, as in real life, almost every Communist government was just as oppressive as the capitalists, just against different people -- China, the Soviet Union, and Cuba being prime examples. Instead of making a valid assertion of the political situation of South America, Allende allows her personal bias to dominate her writing in making her book totally one-sided.

The book is feminist in outlook and represents the oppressions that women are up against, and yet it handles the issue in a one-sided and heavy-handed way. While the female characters are all idealized as heroes, most particularly Clara, Blanca and Alba, the male characters are shown as fundamentally flawed and inferior. Ferula and Esteban, for example, are compared in their relationship with Clara and who else?. Both are consumed with lust and passion, and both are jealous of the other, but Esteban is made into a devil while Ferula becomes a saint.

“Ferula had come to love Clara with a jealous passion that resembled that of a demanding husband more than that of a sister-in-law. With time she lost her prudence and began to let her adoration show in many ways that did not go unnoticed by Esteban. Whenever he returned from the country, Ferula managed to persuade him that Clara was in what she called “One of her bad spells” so he would enter her room rarely, and then only briefly. She would buttress her arguments with recommendations from Dr. Cuevas, which later, when he was asked point-blank, turned out to have been made up. She found a thousand ways to come between husband and wife” Quote? (126).

Ferula is acting just as jealous as Esteban does later in the chapter (130-131 reveals Esteban’s feelings of frustration) and is just as devious as Esteban in tyring to have Clara all to her else, and yet no character calls her out on this, nor does the narration make not upon this. While both of the siblings are jealous and aggressive, Esteban is the one who is reviled for it. While Esteban is cursed to die alone and unloved, Ferula dies a saint who died living along helping the poor.

One of the principal ideas of drama is that the audience doesn’t know what is going to happen, and is dramatic tension when the events unfold. However, all of these events are blatantly told early in the narrative, such as when the book introduces Clara’s pet dog, Barrabas: “It was said he would never stop growing, and if a butcher’s cruelty had not put an end to his existence, he would have reached the size of a camel.” The dog’s murderer is revealed, and this ruins any suspense about his murder. The relationship between Pedro and Blanca can bring about a sense of suspense, because their relationship is forbidden. However, any doubt of the outcome is banished in the chapter of Pedro Tercero’s introduction:

Blanca tore of her clothes and ran out naked to play with Pedro Tercero...When they found them, the little boy was on his bad on the floor and Blanca was curled up with her head on the round belly of her friend. May years later, they would be found in the same position, and a whole lifetime would not be long enough for there atonement. (105)

This passage sums up the entire relationship, essentially quashing any suspense before it builds.

In the end, the narration within the book fails to be appealing because the book isn’t being written for pleasure, it is being written to make a point. This isn’t in itself a bad decision. Animal Farm and 1984 are deliberate attacks upon Communism, but Orwell doesn’t sacrifice the plot and the characterization. What makes this book suffer is that its entire point is to make a political message, and all of its characters and events focus upon proving its point, from the Poet/Candidate to the Tress Maria’s metaphor as part of the country. Allende’s personal background, with her uncle being the democratically elected communist leader of Chile, over thrown in a US military coup, has understandably given her a strong personal bias, which is extremely evident within the book’s writing, as it presents an extremely slanted view political commentary on South America, as we are the supporters of the communist ideals are shown as heroic martyrs.

The character of the overly-glamorized president is the most blatant example of this as his role within the unnamed countries’ politics is just like that of Allende’s own uncle in Chile When the Fascists attack the government, “Jamie threw himself to the floor with everybody else…only the President was on his feet. He walked to the window carrying a bazooka, and fired it at the tanks below.” The president acts like a Mel Gibson action hero, showing no sign of fear or any other natural human reactions, and simply attacks the tanks directly. This is hero worship, much like American descriptions of George Washington fighting the British without ever making any strategic mistakes. The Poet’s funeral is also shown romantically. “Suddenly, someone hoarsely cried out the Poet’s name and in a single voice everyone replied, “Here! Now and forever…..The Poet’s funeral had turned into the symbolic burial of freedom.” (388) Again, while this is an obviously reference to Pablo Neruda, an admittedly great man, the book essentially turns him into a martyr.

The House of the Spirits does present a complex and elaborate plot, and a large cast of interesting characters. Despite this, it all come to naught because the novel fails to inspire an emotional response because Allende dictates the events. It’s the actual interactions between the characters that makes the readers become emotionally invested in the story. Allende fails to inspire to any real emotional attachment to the characters or events because there roles as devices in her promotion of communist is too painfully obvious .

from

EE

13th warrior

Compared to this, even the Vikings look civilized

Now the first question I’m going to get is where the hell have I been? Well the answer is, well, vacation. But not I’m back and I have computer access, to an extent at least, so I’m going to review a B-movie I saw over the weekend. Now I doubt most people have seen this movie, and I’m not exactly recommending it in the conventional sense of the word, but let’s just get on with it.
The film is based after “Eaters of the Dead’ a book by John McTiernan (wrote Jurassic Park), the story of which is about a Baghdad Noble named Ahmad ibn Fadlan, sometime during the 9th century, who gets in trouble with the Caliph, and is banished to the north as an ambassador…IE the worst job in the Muslim Empire other than food tester. Up north, he meets up with a band of Vikings, who he converses with in Latin. However, apparently there is a village to the north being attacked by some sort of monster, and a local shaman is called for advice. She uses her magic to determine that 13 warriors must go to aid the village, but one of them must not be a Viking. As of such, Fadlan finds himself drafted into the mission of fighting in some small remote village, and if you’re noticing the Seven Samurai similarity that just means you’re paying attention. They go the village and are attacked by these monsters, called Wendols”, which are said to be, bear men. In reality, they look like primitive men dressed in bear fur, possibly some other species of humanoid, like Neanderthals (they have Venus figures, which is very interesting). And combat ensues.
Now let me make this clear, this isn’t what I’d call a good movie by any standard. The camera work is shoddy, the directing is clumsy and the dialogue is painful, the fights are laughable, and whoever wrote the script might not actually be literate, and yet, I liked the film. Well I was amused by the film. Well I didn’t cry during the film. What I liked is that, despite all of its numerous problems, there was a real genius in the story, a diamond within about half a ton of rough. First off, I like the Dark Age feel of it. Ok, maybe the prop and set department were just given a crappy budget, but I like the film because everything in it is really decrepit and fallen apart or primitive, much like the dark ages. With the exception of Fadlan himself, all of the characters look filthy, unwashed, and like well…they come from the dark ages. The village is a broken apart dump and the monsters look like really primitive guys who wear bear skins. I like the idea of the supernatural just being things people couldn’t explain, it’s implied that the monsters are subhuman who have entered a berserker rage and are cannibals. And I liked in the fight scenes how everybody is so clumsy and disoriented within the fighting. There is something to be said about a more realistic fight scene.
The movie also deserves credit for having a sympathetic Arabic character, something that Hollywood really lacks sadly. Fadlan is shown to be a very intelligent and culture character, for more than the barbarians around him, and while he is mocked for his small size and his inability to fight well, his great horsemanship earns there respect, as the Arabs were famously (or infamously if you were fighting them) good horsemen, and the movie avoids all of the demeaning serotypes often associated with Arabs. He is also played by Omar Sharif, which is just badass right there, he has some really funny expressions when he realizes not only do these people not bath, there understanding of medicine is horrible.
In essence, I think the film itself is bad, but think of what it could have been. The idea I think is wonderful, it could have been like seven samurai, but with the Grendel aspect thrown in. Personally I’m a big fan of the realistic/gritty view of the dark ages, such as the film Beowulf and Grendel or the French Excalibur, because that kind of dirty view of the time pretty accurate, and like the idea of the monster s not being actual monsters but just primitives in scary cloaks. With the modern movie industry the way it is, I really thing there needs to be a remake of this, because you could get a real masterpiece out of this storyline and setting. In short, I like it, not for what it is, but for what it could have been.
From
EE