pay the band that plays your song
and then there are days like these where men in suits stand above you orange from too much time spent lying in a combination of both sunbeds and sun drenched beaches. It's remarkable how the possession of one thing, money, can seem to be held far more in esteem than another single naturally human attribute. Possessed of a furrowed brow and a tailored jacket & pants to the unnaturally corpulent body, the male stentorian stalks the young retailer carefully and waits to leap to the puffing sweaty attack. Too much?
I've been diving back into the English classics. Is there anything as soothing as a bit of Dickens, comfortable and as paternal as a worn leather armchair in a comfortable room. It's a statement alright as is Austen in all her mind-twisting nihilism. She seems convinced of the need for suffering, beating down her characters so their mind becomes altered by the ordeal. But this isn't about Aunt Jane. This is about Mary Shelley.
Shelley was the daughter of Mary Wollstonecraft and William Godwin. Her husband, Precy Bysshe, was anxious, she writes us in her introduction to the 1931 edition of Frankenstein, that she should prove herself worthy of her parentage. But, she tells us, life, reality and ultimately a family got in the way. But she eventually did get round to it. And here's the proof: Frankenstein is a phenomenon. There's no other way around the summing up of it. The first striking aspect of reading Frankenstein is that, as a novel, it is nothing similar to the various forms that it is popular assumed to be. First of all there is no Igor. There is no Igor! Where does Igor come from? Frankenstein operates entirely alone which casts a far more sinister shadow over the proceedings then does the ultimate creation of the monster. We all know the monster exists, the whys and wherefores are entirely at odds with what a modern reader new to the text would expect. We are not prepared for the savagery with which the creation forces itself on the creator. There is no way of being prepared for the blinding egotism of Frankenstein who, again contrary to popular belief is not actually in the novel a titular doctor. The orgasmic freedom that he creates the monster comes solely from within him. His madness isn't portrayed as insanity but rather beyond the boundaries of socially acceptable self-indulgence of the intellect. The appeal in creation is obvious; who is there who would not secretly admit to the wish of seeing a physical end-product solely derived from imaginative intelligence? His creation of the monster is in defiance of the rules of the university and the society of academics that he travelled to the Bavarian university of Ingolstadt to join. All of his subsequent actions are trapped by the consideration of the effects that he might have on his immediate world around him and the wider effects on the community he considers himself part of. I'm sure that Burroughs loved this novel as it illustrates, no, illuminates, systems of control like no other gothic novel. Gothic novels tend to demystify. Frankenstein tends towards inversion, inwards towards the question of mystery. The mystery is that of Frankenstein. he commends himself to the higher power of god. The creation Frankenstein commends himself to his known creator. I could be glib and invoke Dawkins to tackle that as I consider it as proof positive that God must have existed at some point for someone. But then again I hate Dawkins and would do anything to turf him out on his pious arse.
I had originally read the 1818 text which should still be available from Oxford's Classics when I was a precocious reader of 12 and the importance of these things were completely unknown to me. I then gae up on reading for about 2 1/2- 3 years. I reread the book last week that put me back onto the path of righteousness and belive it or not it was John Grisham's Pelican Brief. I love thrillers and John Grisham is one damn fine legal thriller writer. Don't bother with any of the later stuff as he runs out of tangible ideas but the Pelican Brief, The Rainmaker, The Client, The Partner- all those and several more are just damn good reads. You can feel the author reveling in being anti-capitalist and left-wing. The characters are quickly sketched and fleshed out by their actions. I'm always being told by way of excuse for buying these books that they're easy to read. Not so. They may be easy to scan but anybody can read any book. His pace is unerring and he's certainly no Dan Brown. Grisham has an eye for detail and research. Each character's routine is loved and tread with a light step endearing the reader to them or not,.Coal, a presidential exectuive in Pelican bears remarkable resemblance to Mr. Slope from Trollope's Barchester Towers. It just can't startle me in the slightest if there is some connection there. Just read the damn thing and be done with it. It'll only take a couple of hours and I guarantee you'll have a rollicking good time.
So many surprises out there it's only possible to know where to begin. Where you'll end up is hardly anyone elses concern but your own.
As a final note amazon has recently bought or is/was about to buy abebooks.com. Is this the nail in the coffin for independent booksellers? Tune in next week to find out.
I've been diving back into the English classics. Is there anything as soothing as a bit of Dickens, comfortable and as paternal as a worn leather armchair in a comfortable room. It's a statement alright as is Austen in all her mind-twisting nihilism. She seems convinced of the need for suffering, beating down her characters so their mind becomes altered by the ordeal. But this isn't about Aunt Jane. This is about Mary Shelley.
Shelley was the daughter of Mary Wollstonecraft and William Godwin. Her husband, Precy Bysshe, was anxious, she writes us in her introduction to the 1931 edition of Frankenstein, that she should prove herself worthy of her parentage. But, she tells us, life, reality and ultimately a family got in the way. But she eventually did get round to it. And here's the proof: Frankenstein is a phenomenon. There's no other way around the summing up of it. The first striking aspect of reading Frankenstein is that, as a novel, it is nothing similar to the various forms that it is popular assumed to be. First of all there is no Igor. There is no Igor! Where does Igor come from? Frankenstein operates entirely alone which casts a far more sinister shadow over the proceedings then does the ultimate creation of the monster. We all know the monster exists, the whys and wherefores are entirely at odds with what a modern reader new to the text would expect. We are not prepared for the savagery with which the creation forces itself on the creator. There is no way of being prepared for the blinding egotism of Frankenstein who, again contrary to popular belief is not actually in the novel a titular doctor. The orgasmic freedom that he creates the monster comes solely from within him. His madness isn't portrayed as insanity but rather beyond the boundaries of socially acceptable self-indulgence of the intellect. The appeal in creation is obvious; who is there who would not secretly admit to the wish of seeing a physical end-product solely derived from imaginative intelligence? His creation of the monster is in defiance of the rules of the university and the society of academics that he travelled to the Bavarian university of Ingolstadt to join. All of his subsequent actions are trapped by the consideration of the effects that he might have on his immediate world around him and the wider effects on the community he considers himself part of. I'm sure that Burroughs loved this novel as it illustrates, no, illuminates, systems of control like no other gothic novel. Gothic novels tend to demystify. Frankenstein tends towards inversion, inwards towards the question of mystery. The mystery is that of Frankenstein. he commends himself to the higher power of god. The creation Frankenstein commends himself to his known creator. I could be glib and invoke Dawkins to tackle that as I consider it as proof positive that God must have existed at some point for someone. But then again I hate Dawkins and would do anything to turf him out on his pious arse.
I had originally read the 1818 text which should still be available from Oxford's Classics when I was a precocious reader of 12 and the importance of these things were completely unknown to me. I then gae up on reading for about 2 1/2- 3 years. I reread the book last week that put me back onto the path of righteousness and belive it or not it was John Grisham's Pelican Brief. I love thrillers and John Grisham is one damn fine legal thriller writer. Don't bother with any of the later stuff as he runs out of tangible ideas but the Pelican Brief, The Rainmaker, The Client, The Partner- all those and several more are just damn good reads. You can feel the author reveling in being anti-capitalist and left-wing. The characters are quickly sketched and fleshed out by their actions. I'm always being told by way of excuse for buying these books that they're easy to read. Not so. They may be easy to scan but anybody can read any book. His pace is unerring and he's certainly no Dan Brown. Grisham has an eye for detail and research. Each character's routine is loved and tread with a light step endearing the reader to them or not,.Coal, a presidential exectuive in Pelican bears remarkable resemblance to Mr. Slope from Trollope's Barchester Towers. It just can't startle me in the slightest if there is some connection there. Just read the damn thing and be done with it. It'll only take a couple of hours and I guarantee you'll have a rollicking good time.
So many surprises out there it's only possible to know where to begin. Where you'll end up is hardly anyone elses concern but your own.
As a final note amazon has recently bought or is/was about to buy abebooks.com. Is this the nail in the coffin for independent booksellers? Tune in next week to find out.

