Snow Day

I'm sitting alone at work. The weather forecast for today was bad, so nobody came in... except me. No customers. Hardly any phone calls. My bosses aren't even here. It's snowing outside, and I'm sitting here listening to Nat King Cole, Bing Crosby, John Gary (lesser known, but he sang a lovely, weird, kind of scary version of the song This is All I Ask) -- and writing.

So, I sit. And read. And work on my writing.

That has been the advantage of it being rather slow at work. I've started on a short story, and I haven't written a short story in forever, having stuck mainly to play/theater stuff and this novel I've been struggling with for the past year or so... I'm quite enjoying it, except I'm wondering if the story of it might be a trifle on the horrific side. Perhaps I should have someone read it before I send it out.

And I'm reading an electronic advance copy of a book called The Cart Before the Corpse that I was supposed to get back in October, and they only just sent me.

Now I'm listening to Connee Boswell sing In the Middle of a Kiss. What a pleasant day I'm having. -- Mrs. Hall

Martha Stewart and Peppermint Bark

One of the things I got for Christmas this year was a couple stockingsful of Dove's seasonal "Peppermint Bark" candies. I found them highly enjoyable, featuring a delightful combo of chocolate and mint (a layer of dark chocolate, and then a layer of white/mint chocolate with bits of broken candy-cane inside) -- but that's not why I'm mentioning them.

On the inside of each wrapper (as per Dove's habit) they each had a little something written. Normally it's something like, "Go ahead -- endulge!" or "Reward yourself in little ways." In other words, Keep Cramming the Candy in Your Face, Fatty. (Don't get me wrong; I highly enjoy Dove Chocolate. I simply find its wrapper "promises" rather self-serving...) In the case of their Peppermint Bark, inside the wrapper they inexplicably had a little snippet of advice from Martha Stewart on holiday decorating. (Martha Stewart being involved would probably be more explicable if I had seen the bag; perhaps it was a special Martha Stewart edition of the candy or something. Who knows? Or maybe they just thought that was the best possible thing they could put on the inside wrapper, because putting comments about Christmas itself would be too religious and offend Atheist candy eaters. I don't know.)

Anyway, I'm getting away from my point which was this; every time I ate one of these things and then read the little holiday decorating advice inside, I found myself getting just a touch perturbed. It certainly had nothing to do with the candy itself, which I thoroughly enjoyed. And it wasn't that I was reading a quote from Martha Stewart, or that I was being given holiday decorating advice far too late to enact it. I had to actively consider this to figure out what was bothering me.

Finally, sitting on the couch with one of these in my mouth, I realized what was wrong: it was a question of phrasing. The way these little tidbits of holiday decorating advice are phrased, they are ORDERS. Look at this one:

"Center candles in clear glass cylinders and fill with nuts."

Granted, it's kind of a subtle thing. It's not like she says, "Center candles in clear glass cylinders and fill with nuts, stupid. And get a move on!" But it is an order, nonetheless. It's not "You can center candles..." or "You may center candles..." or any other phrasing that implies choice on my part. Maybe I don't want to center candles in clear glass cylinders and fill with nuts, but these wrappers don't care -- they don't give me an option. Almost every wrapper I read comes across like that!

Of course, Mrs. Stewart was probably given an ultimatum regarding how many words she could use on each wrapper, but upon reflection, I think this just might be a Martha Stewart thing. Let me clarify, I don't really have anything against Martha Stewart (except that the majority of projects in her books are way too nit-picky for my tastes) -- but something about her recommendations always slightly bothers me, and I think this is it; namely, that she doesn't recommend; she commands. Am I wrong? People who have more Martha Stewart experience are welcome to comment. -- Mrs. Hall

A Review: It Happened in Italy by Elizabeth Bettina

The book It Happened In Italy presents us with a wonderful and untold WWII story: the story of the Jews who survived, and actually didn't have that bad of a time, thanks to Italian Catholics who helped them hide and escape from the clutches of the Nazis.

The problem with this book is that it doesn't really tell this story.

Oh, we do get personal stories of survivors, and the clear difference between being in a camp in Italy and a camp anywhere else in Europe. (Many survivors said that living in a prison camp in Italy was like being in "a hotel"). As I said, it's a wonderful, upbeat story of WWII -- and a story we haven't heard before, which is a shame.

However, this book is mainly about the author, Elizabeth Bettina, and her experiences after she dug up this story and helped a few of the survivors go back to Italy to visit the people who helped them survive. And that's the problem with this book! It's only partly about those incidents during WWII. It's mostly about Elizabeth Bettina and the coincidences she encountered and good times she had.

Granted, from story-telling point of view, "We didn't have that bad a time, and we escaped and lived happy lives," isn't all that dramatic of a story. Twenty or thirty stories like that get a bit samey. But when a book pertains to be about an incident during WWII, it should be about that, and not about someone finding out about that. I felt that instead of being titled It Happened in Italy, it should have been titled, "My Adventures In And Around What Happened In Italy." (Less succinct, but more precise.) In fact, this has been a problem with a number of recent non-fiction books I've read lately; they didn't need to be in first person, and in fact could have benefited by not being in first-person. She comes off as just a touch self-congratulatory. And because the book focuses on her, and she's presumably going to go on locating and helping survivors, it doesn't really have a big finish -- it just ends.

However, as I said, the book does make some good points and presents us with formerly untold stories; something any WWII buff would be interested to find out about. It IS important that these stories get told. I simply wish they had been told on their own. --Mrs. Hall

A Review: Doubleback by Libby Fischer Hellmann

I'm going to start the new year with a book review -- DoubleBack by Libby Fischer Hellmann. It's taken me a while to read this book, and the reason for this is that -- well, frankly, it just wasn't that good.

The plot follows two sleuths (Georgia Davis, a professional, and Ellie, un-professional) as they attempt to figure out the reasoning for a bizarre crime; the daughter of a lady banker is kidnapped, and then mysteriously returned before a ransom is paid -- and then the lady banker is murdered. Turns out the reasons were very complex... but I'm not going to get into that, in case you actually want to read it.

I'm not saying it's a terrible book. And, perhaps as this is one of a series and I haven't read the preceding books, I'm not giving it a fair shake.

But I have to say that there were problems with the construction of the book that kept me from really enjoying it. For one thing -- the book switched back and forth, inconsistently, between first and third person... to no real end, as far as I could see. (Ellie got to speak in first person [sometimes] while Georgia was always in third). For another thing... Ellie, although one of her segments began the book, served almost no purpose except to provide a couple expository moments. She could have been left out of the book entirely and it wouldn't have hurt it, because the major story elements and drama were in the hands of Georgia. And finally, I just didn't really care about either of these characters enough to keep reading.

I'm not saying this was a 100% bad book. There were a few scenes that were quite exciting and gripping. But this book had serious issues with flow that kept me from enjoying it. -- Mrs. Hall

Next Up...!

Well, just a few hours left of 2009 and of this decade. I've noticed a lot of people slamming this past decade... and I don't exactly know why. Granted, we had some rather dramatic stuff go on in the past ten years, but was this the worst decade ever? I don't think so. People in their twenties and thirties need to stop being so dramatic. (I'm in my thirties, so I can say that.)

After reading my recent anti-Holmes blog, Mr. Hall hypothesized an upcoming film we can doubtlessly expect from Hollywood: MARPLE starring Megan Fox!! "Solving crime has never been sexier!"

On a somewhat related note, I'm ending this year reading one of my Christmas gifts to myself -- a copy of Miss Marple: The Complete Short Stories -- and Mrs. Miniver. And I'm still reading all those other books as well... This is why I try not to read more than two books at a time, because when it comes right down to it, I don't read more than two books at a time. If I'm reading more than two books at a time, two books get read -- and the others sit in a pile somewhere, which is where all those others are sitting (except for the book of Advent and Christmas reflections. I'm resignedly reading my one entry per day. More on that later.)

Well, that's all for now; I'll hastily wish you a Merry Last Few Days of Christmas and a Happy New Year. I'm off! -- Mrs. Hall

Getting Rid of Books

FiberMom, an online friend of mine, shared this interesting article: Books You Can Live Without. They talk to a bunch of writers and ask them what their criteria are for getting rid of books. Very interesting.

I am notoriously poor at getting rid of books. It's just that having a lot of books just sitting on one's shelf, waiting to be read, makes me feel happy and hopeful -- and the opposite makes me feel the opposite. Occasionally I do have a book purge (when I get rid of all the books that I no longer have the desire to read, that I have tried to read seven times and never gotten through, or that I read once and know that I will have no desire to read again). However, as Mr. Hall (who has moved all of my books not once but four times since we got married) says, I still have too many.

On an only marginally related note, here's a list of 10 Words You Need To Stop Misspelling -- an order of business for some of us, a guide for the rest of us. Quite lovely, and needs no more comments on my part. I think I want the poster. -- Mrs. Hall

Why I'm Not Seeing the New Sherlock Holmes Movie

If you read this with any frequency (or are a friend/family member and pay any attention whatsoever to my reading habits) you'll be aware that I've been on a mystery kick for about the past two years. Thus, you might think that I'd be very excited about the newly released Robert Downey Jr. extravaganza, Holmes.

YOU WOULD BE WRONG.

I first heard about this movie a couple years ago when Mr. Downey Jr. was cast in it. At that time, there were rumors of this and one other Sherlock Holmes movie -- the other starring Sacha Baron Cohen (of Borat fame) and Will Ferrel. I wasn't particularly upset about either movie's casting; I like Robert Downey Jr., and I think Sacha Baron Cohen (although his style of humor makes me extremely uncomfortable most of the time) could do just about anything you asked him to do. Apparently the Sacha Baron Cohen film evaporated, though -- leaving us with this.

I had a mild amount of trepidation about it, but wasn't really all that concerned ("I mean, how could they possibly ruin Sherlock Holmes?") There have been plenty of film adapations that didn't stick strictly to the books -- and yet perfectly kept the spirit of them. For instance, the Michael Caine film Without a Clue operates on the principle that Holmes was a bumbling dolt and Watson was the smart one; yet, I LOVE that movie. (It's not a great movie, and it's very goofy -- but I love it.) And if we want to be really strict, most of the Basil Rathbone Holmes movies weren't totally book-accurate; I mean, for heaven's sakes, half of them were original stories that took place during WWII.

And then I saw the trailer.

Perhaps I was confused... but didn't there seem to be an awful lot of exploding, nudeness and leaping out of windows?

DID THE PEOPLE WHO WROTE THIS KNOW THAT THERE WERE BOOKS ABOUT SHERLOCK HOLMES???!!!!

Evidently they didn't; or else, having read A Study in Scarlet or The Hound of the Baskervilles, this person tossed the book aside and remarked, "That was boring. Let's just throw that out and start from scratch. I KNOW! Let's have him naked, and kissin' girls and jumpin' out of exploding windows!"

Most movies, even ones that I have severe reservations about from the outset, I will give a fair shake: I will sit on my reservations and go and see the film and then make my final pronouncement.

But not this one. Oh no. The trailer was enough. I wish Robert Downey Jr. all the best, and am certain he did the best he could with what he was given -- but I completely and utterly boycott this movie and urge you to do the same. Not only because it evidently is utterly failing to keep the spirit of the books (or pay attention to the time period this is supposed to take place in) -- but because, unlike most movie adaptations, this is not going to encourage people to read the books! Somebody who watches and enjoys a movie with lots of naked detectives and exploding girls and whatnot is going to be very let-down when they pick up the actual book and discover that it's about some crusty old British guy who solves crimes by thinking about stuff.

And that's all I have to say about that. -- Mrs. Hall