Book review: Spellbound by James Essinger

Reader #83 wrote: SPELLBOUND: THE SURPRISING ORIGINS AND ASTONISHING SECRETS OF ENGLISH SPELLING by James Essinger (ISBN-13 978-0-385-34084-7,
ISBN-10 0-385-34084-2) is more a history of the English language
and less an explanation about spelling. Essinger also makes some
mistakes, or rather, has some misunderstandings. He refers to "a
holy book, such as the Christian Bible, the Muslim Koran, or the
Jewish Talmud" (page xxviii). The Talmud is not really a holy
book; it is more a set of annotations to the Torah, which *is* a
holy book. He says of "kosher" that it "has come to mean in
modern English not just food that is prepared according to Jewish
but also, more broadly, anything that is correct, genuine, and
legitimate" (page 26). The only problem is that that is what it
means in Hebrew; one speaks of a "kosher scroll" in a mezuzah,
for example.

And in writing about languages which do not use the Roman
alphabet, Essinger says, "where there is an accepted romanization
system, the writing of a foreign nonalphabetic name is fairly
straighforward. But a strange-looking name in a foreign language
that is written using Roman letters will not have any
standardized way of being written" (page 52). If it is already
in Roman letters, why change it at all?

On page 77 he gives a sample of text written in the International
Phoentic Alphabet (IPA). I found myself thinking how interesting
it looked. Then on page 78 he says, "purely phonetic writing
looks absolutely horrendous, as the physical appearance of
Hamlet's speech in the IPA shows all too well." Well, that
wasn't my reaction at all!

Essinger talks about how the English language became basically a
completely different language by 1500 from what it was in 1400,
and the "Great Vowel Shift", which made what had been pronounced
"Saw it is team to say the shows on the sarm fate noo," to our
present "So it is time to see the shoes on the same feet now."
Again, though, a lot of this is only marginally related to
spelling. Grade: B.

Movie review: The Incredible Hulk

Reader #83 wrote: The Army created but cannot control Bruce Banner, the Hulk. Banner's anger has the power to turn him into a bouncing ten-foot monster as hard as rock. Edward Norton (who plays Banner) is one of the finest actors of his generation. This may not be the best film for him, but he is an asset to the film. THE INCREDIBLE HULK is a darker and grimmer superhero film with a more tragic hero than we have seen of late from the Marvel films.

[Following the main text there is a minor spoiler on some points that did
not work for me.]

Within weeks of each other we have seen at theaters two Marvel Comics
superhero films. While they also stand alone, they are really chapters in
a longer story whose arc has yet to be revealed. IRON MAN and THE
INCREDIBLE HULK are both good as superhero films go. The public seems to
prefer IRON MAN, which I reviewed previously and gave a high +1 on the -4
to +4 bell-curve scale. THE INCREDIBLE HULK gets the same rating, but of
the two I give the edge to THE INCREDIBLE HULK. Why do I prefer this
film? First, I am never likely to meet a playboy arms dealer like Tony
Stark. Do I doubt that such a person drives around war zones drinking
cocktails? Let us say I am unconvinced. Perhaps characters like this
exist in the real world, perhaps not. On the other hand I can well
believe that there are people living in the slums of Brazil coming to
terms with personal problems like anger. Do I believe that when they
become enraged they grow to twice their scale, turn the color of avocados,
and adopt a doors- optional policy for getting around? Perhaps they do in
their imaginations. For me that is not a big stretch. And do these
people become so possessed by their rage that they become supremely
violent? You bet they do. For me Bruce Banner (The Hulk) is a much more
believable main character than is Tony Stark. He is a man of very common
emotions, simply exaggerated. Needing the violent outlet while detesting
it is very real. Iron Man being kidnapped and forced to develop missiles
is not quite as real and certainly less primal.

The plot of THE INCREDIBLE HULK can be summed up in two or three
sentences. In the Ang Lee THE HULK the military used super- science to
turn Bruce Banner (Edward Norton) into an awesome fighting man. When he
gets mad enough to fight he becomes a ten- foot-tall monster. After the
early transformations he did some really bad things (only hinted at for
those who have not read the comic or seen THE HULK). Banner ran away and
is now hiding out in the crowded slums of Brazil trying to learn to manage
the world's deadliest rage. To keep busy he corresponds electronically
with an enigmatic friend whom he knows only by the code name Mr. Blue.
The army, personified by General Ross (William Hurt), has tracked him down
and sends a special commando, Emil Blonsky (Tim Roth), to capture him.
Well, we know how well that will work. And admittedly here and elsewhere
there are few real surprises in the film. Banner evades capture and works
his way back north to an East Coast school, Culver University. At this
school is his girlfriend Betty Ross (Liv Tyler) and the scientist Mr.
Blue (Tim Blake Nelson). (There are also quaint bicycle-stands labeled
"City of Toronto".) There he will find the ultimate confrontation--or at
least the biggest in the film.

Marvel films seem to be developing their own style that continues from
film to film. We have the cameo for Stan Lee. This time he is not at the
end of a garden hose as he was in the last X-Men movie, and he is not at
the end of a conversation as he was in IRON MAN. This time he is the
end. More specifically he is a very much a loose end in the plot. I
waited in vain for the plot to explain what happened to his character, but
if it was there I missed it. Also there is a certain inexorable
predictability in the plotting. There is segregation of each to his own
type. What does a man in a power-suit fight in the climactic battle? He
is matched against a man in a bigger and more mighty power- suit. What
does a hulk fight in the climactic scene? It has to be a bigger meaner
hulk. Another element of the Marvel style in recent films to have a final
scene at the end of the credits. It has some unexpected twist to reward
those audience members who stay through the credits. X-MEN 2 had such a
scene, as did IRON MAN. Here the scene is moved to the beginning rather
than the end of the credits. It looks like someone in production decided
that too many people were missing what could be a pivotal teaser scene.
Stan Lee is not the only in-joke casting. We get to see/hear Lou Ferrigno
as both the voice of the Hulk and as a minor character. There are cute
allusions to Godzilla movies, to King Kong, and even to Tiananmen Square.

Edward Norton acts with a low-key style. I am not sure he conveys the
angst as much as was needed, but his persona is a nice counterpoint to the
thrashing monster he becomes. The most memorable acting in the film is
from Tim Blake Nelson, whose boyish glee for studying the Hulk makes him
one of the most likeable mad scientists in recent film history. Nelson,
some of the realistic settings, the tragedy of the main character, and the
dark style make this a better than average Marvel superhero film. For my
money it is also better than the very recent IRON MAN. Grade B

Film Credits: http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0800080/

Minor spoiler warning:

I did have a few problems with the script. At one point after a blackout
spell Banner asks a stranger, "where am I?" The stranger responds, "In
Guatemala." If a stranger asked you where he was, would you say "the
United States"? My wife wanted to know how Banner had managed to cross
the Panama Canal without anyone noticing how really big and green he was.
Perhaps he had switched back to Banner. After all, the rules of this
particular mutation are unclear. There is a nice tender King-Kong-Anne-
Darrow sort of scene in which he is Hulked, but does not seem to have been
angry for hours. Why is he still engorged?

If someone about 160 pounds actually threw a helicopter, it is the human
who would do most of the flying according to the laws of physics. You
learn to ignore the fact that he would have to be a lot more massive as
the Hulk than he is as Banner. It is therefore probably bad form to show
an examination table that held Banner perfectly well moments before but
crushes under the massive weight of Hulk. It rubs our noses in the fact
that Banner's mutation circumvents conservation of mass.

Movie review: Untraceable

Reader #5 wrote: This "R" rated, action-packed, suspense/thriller movie stars Diane Lane as the lead FBI agent assigned to a track down a killer who airs his murders on his web site. This movie is not for the weak at heart but milder than the "Saw" movie series which made it much easier for me to watch. Not too many movies made in the last few years have kept my interest but this one I would say is the best I can remember watching since the movie "Seven" with Brad Pitt and Morgan Freeman (watch that one too). The box cover compares "Untraceable" to "Silence of the Lambs" and I would have to agree. "Untraceable" is creepy and you may want to watch it with someone and keep some lights on! I would definitely say that it is worth renting and watching not once, but a few times. It was very well made and with technology what it is these days, it is extremely believable which adds to the high entertainment quality of this film. Why are you still reading this, go out and rent it today!

Book review: Apocalipstick by Sue Margolis

Reader#536 wrote: Even though it took a while to finish, I really enjoyed it. It's based in the UK. I can relate to it. I love the love twists...The main character is Rebecca. She works for "Vanguard" which is a small newspaper (based in UK). She finally gets her big break when a girl working for a cosmetic company reveals the dangers of a popular cream. On top of that, her enemy from school has re-emerged and is about to marry her dad. At the end it all works out...with a good mix of sweet suspense! Grade A.

Book review: The Kite Runner by Khalid Hosseini

Reader# 83 wrote: Khalid Hosseini was born in Afghanistan and today lives in California as a physician and now a novelist. In fact, THE KITE RUNNER (ISBN-13 978-1-594-48000-3, ISBN-10 1-594-48000-1) is his first novel, it was adapted into a popular film, and he has now written a second novel, A THOUSAND SPLENDID SUNS which itself is in the early stages of production as a film.

THE KITE RUNNER begins as the story of the relationship of two boys. Amir is a boy of Kabul whose father, a wealthy merchant, owns a nice mansion with servants. Hassan is the son of Amir's servant. The two boys are inseparable. They seem apart only when Amir goes to school and Hassan returns home to for the household chores of a servant.

For sport Amir flies kites competitively and is becoming very good at the
sport, attracting local attention. His servant Hassan is his kite runner.
That means Hassan chases after the rival kites that Amir has decapitated.
Hassan dotes on Amir, which bother Amir a little. Amir also tells stories
that enchant Hassan. Together they face the local bullies who terrify them
both.

The day of a great kite competition comes and Amir has a great victory.
Hassan runs to get the loser's lost kite. Eventually Amir runs after
Hassan and sees him being confronted by the bullies. Amir watches on as
his friend is raped. He wants to defend his friend and knows he should,
but is terrorized and instead sulks off.

After that nothing is the same between the boys. Amir comes to hate
himself for his cowardice and disloyalty. Hassan does not admit to knowing
of his friend's betrayal of him, but he almost certainly does. Amir turns
his shame into rejection of Hassan.

This is all just the set-up of the story. We will follow Amir through
tumultuous years of history for Afghanistan and his father's and his own
perilous escape to the United States. His shame at the one action will
bring him back to a Kabul under the Taliban in an effort to redeem his
life and to recover his self- respect.

There are some minor faults to the book. The character of Hassan is just a
little too perfect and it adds a melodramatic feel to the book. Amir did
so much worse than betray a friend, he betrayed the wonderful, loyal,
faithful Hassan. He denied, if you will, a Christ-figure. This weakens the
story. If Hassan had not been so perfect would the betrayal be any more
forgivable? Do we need to be just only to the faultless?

Much of the thrust of the book is the contrast of life in Kabul before and
after the coming of the Soviet invasion and later of Taliban. The old
Kabul under the monarchy is a place of contentment (at least for the
wealthy Amir and his family) whose similarities to the West are more
apparent than the differences. Kabul under the heel of the Taliban is a
place of constant fear, of public executions, of corruption, and of
systematized child rape under the guise of religious orthodoxy. It is the
place that Amir must go to redeem himself and his self-respect.

As bad as the Taliban is for the men in THE KITE RUNNER, it is far worse
for women as we see in the haunting A THOUSAND SPLENDID SUNS. These are
purported to be the first novels written in English by an Afghan. If so
they are an enthralling start.

I read in sequence THREE CUPS OF TEA (by Greg Mortenson and David Oliver
Relin), THE KITE-RUNNER, and A THOUSAND SPLENDID SUNS. The three make a
very good combination. The Mortenson book is non-fiction and tells of his
efforts building schools in Pakistan and Afghanistan. At least to
Mortenson this work is a powerful weapon against the Taliban and other
Islamic extremists. His schools give education to the young and with
education they can resist the extremists. His book also describes what a
virulent evil the Taliban has been for Afghanistan. It also sees that part
of the world through the eyes of an American. This has a downside and an
upside. The downside is that Mortenson cannot understand the area as
thoroughly as someone who was born and raised there. The upside is that he
knows how an American would see that part of the world. To Mortenson the
area is very alien to his and our expectations. On the other hand in
Hosseini's writing Kabul sounds not too unlike the town I grew up in. Each
book in the succession expresses more rage and frustration at what the
Taliban did to Afghanistan. Together they make a strong case for anything
anyone can do to defeat this terrible movement. Grade A.

Movie review: Refusnik

Reader #83 wrote: This is the saga of the Refuseniks, Jews in the Soviet Union who requested to leave knowing they would be treated as enemies of the state and given harsh and at times barbaric treatment. A new documentary written and directed by Laura Bialis tells the story of the nearly thirty years of courage in the face of repression in the Soviet Union. This is polished and evocative filmmaking.

It is spring. This is time of Easter and Passover and the time of year
that it is traditional for television to run the film THE TEN COMMANDMENTS. This year there is another and somewhat parallel story being released, though this one is a documentary of recent history. The film is REFUSENIK, and it tells the story of Jews again held against their will in a country that will not let them go. The country was Russia in the last decades of the Soviet Union. Russia's tradition was to suppress and abuse the Jews with discrimination building to pogroms back in Tsarist times. The coming of communism to Russia brought only a short respite before the new rulers of the country continued with their repressive policies. Under Stalin the repression began again and it specifically targeted the Refuseniks--Jews who had requested to leave the country--for almost three decades. With American and the newly founded Israel ready and anxious to provide a haven for these Jews they needed only the permission of the government to exit. As a policy permission was never granted. Being refused the people came to be called Refuseniks, but their punishment went beyond merely being refused. Jews who requested to leave were treated with barbaric hatred. They typically lost their employment and frequently were imprisoned and even tortured. Many were exiled to the frozen Gulag. Others were treated as mentally ill for wanting to leave the "ideal workers' state" and were committed to mental institutions. With the fall of the Soviet Union and with pressure from the West and worldwide eventually the Jews of the Russia were allowed to leave. 1,500,000 of them did leave, most settling in Israel and the United States.

While in the 1970s and 1980s the Refusenik movement got some public
attention, little has been said about it since. So as not to forget what happened Laura Bialis writes and directs this documentary about the story of the Refusenik movement. The style is mostly eyewitness accounts by participants, many of whom were activists in and out of the Soviet Union in the events of the movement. Their stories are illustrated with archival and newsreel footage. Best known among the activists is Natan Sharansky, who had requested and been denied an exit visa. In 1977 Sharansky was arrested and tried for invented charges of treason and spying for the United States. These charges have since been shown to be false. Sharansky was incarcerated in Leftorovo Prison were he remained under barbaric conditions for 16 months. He was then sent to a prison camp in the Siberian Gulag where he remained for nine more years as his wife desperately worked for his release. By 1986 the USSR was foundering and was anxious for Glasnost. Then President Ronald Reagan made clear that the treatment of Soviet Jews would be a strong consideration in the negotiations. Sharansky was released in 1986. His story and the stories of Kirov Ballet star Valery Panov and of physicist Andrei Sakharov, all Refuseniks, are part of the story.

Where the documentary falls down a bit is in not discussing the motives of the Soviets in repressing the Refuseniks. Michael Gorbachov is quoted as saying that these people were considered to be people of value to the Soviet Union, but they could make little contribution as laborers in the Gulag. It is more likely that he did not want to set a precedent of letting one group go when so many other groups might have wanted the same privilege. And eventually they as well as the Refuseniks got it.

REFUSENIK bears witness to the struggle of the Refuseniks and of the
changes that their courage and that of the international community brought about. This film makes a good pairing with THE SINGING REVOLUTION (2007), which was released earlier this year and tell the story of Estonia's campaign to free themselves from the yoke of the Soviet's. Both have messages that we need just now. REFUSENIK scheduled to be released in New York City May 9 and in Los Angeles on May 23. Grade A.

Book Review: Watchmen by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons

Reader #62 wrote: Watchmen is far from your average "superhero" comic. The year is 1985, and US relations with Russia are, predictably, cold. The action starts with the investigation of the murder of a "costumed crimefighter" called The Comedian (no relation to The Joker). In fact, all of the main characters in Watchmen are costumed crimefighters, mostly retired and estranged, though, after the government outlawed "vigilante justice". These "superheroes" are all too human, with broken marriages, histories of violence, and lots of old grudges against one another. Even Doc Manhattan, who as the result of a lab accident is transformed into a physics-wielding demigod, has the tragic flaw of losing his capacity to understand emotions. Despite their broken and long-past-prime condition, however, this reluctant team must solve the puzzle of who would want them out of the way. Time is running out for America, too, because Russian tanks are moving into Afghanistan, and Russian fingers are tickling the red button...

Watchmen is dark, creepy, and violent, as one would expect from the creator of V for Vendetta . It's also thoroughly engrossing; I read the entire novel, a rather hefty thing, in one day. Besides the excellent character development, I particularly enjoyed the fact that the line between right and wrong was rather blurry, something that's not often done in the superhero genre. By fighting crime without the consent of the government, the "good guys" are inherently lawbreakers (not to mention their acts of arson, sexual assault, and murder), while the "bad guy" has, arguably, the well-being of the entire world at heart. Grade: A.