1000 Years of Annoying the French (Stephen Clarke)

Who doesn't enjoy taking it to the French?  1000 Years of the Annoying the French is a unique kind of history book.  It's a tongue-in-cheek look at history since the Normans invaded England in 1066, focusing on the many encounters England and France have had over the centuries.  Written by a Brit who's intimately familiar with his cross-channel neighbors (he's lived in Paris for years), the book is enjoyable and educational.

For maximum enjoyment of this work, adjust your expectations in the following ways:

1) Since the focus is on Anglo-French encounters (on a national or personal scale), the book will dwell at length on one situation (say, the Hundred Years' War) or personality, then zoom forward decades (or centuries) to the next item of interest.  So don't expect equal treatment of time periods or famous persons, and don't expect explanations for every event mentioned (Clarke mentions the Boer War, for example, but only in the context that it ticked off the French- he doesn't discuss its causes, goals, etc).  For that reason, you may enjoy this more if you have a cursory knowledge of Anglo-French history, to help put each situation in context (most of the events/people are pretty well-known, though, so you don't need to be a scholar). 

2) A goal of the book is to dispel popular beliefs about certain historical events, with the intent of revealing France's failures and foibles.  For example, the Normans (from Normandy, in what is modern France) that invaded England  were not French- they were the descendants of Scandinavians who hated the French.  So don't let the French take credit for them.  As another example, Joan of Arc was killed by the English (a fact well publicized), but the French themselves had a large role in her condemnation, selling her to the English to die, and sentencing her to death for wearing trousers (i.e. dressing like a man).  Though she's a patron saint of the country today, France actually killed her off first.  Stories similar to this abound throughout the book- highlighting ways that France has 'misremembered' events that don't cast it in a glorious light.  Every nation has events that it twists for the sake of national pride, and this book focuses full-bore on France's.  If you don't like that idea, you won't enjoy this book.

3) This is tongue-in-cheek history.  The author casts things in an amusing light- easy to do, because let's face it: we humans have a knack for doing stupid things, and that tendency holds true on the national level as well as the personal.  This book celebrates that, in a sense.  It has echoes of comedy writing (similar to Dave Barry), though it's not as far-fetched as Barry, nor does it contain made-up situations.  It focuses on the facts, especially amusing facts, and the author lets the foolishness of the people(s) and the time(s) speak for itself. 

Overall, I really enjoyed this.  My interest held the entire time (which is atypical for me with history books), and I learned a good deal.  Being pretty familiar with English history, this book gave me a dash of French history as well, which I appreciated.  The "zooming" around certain events (item 1) above) didn't bother me as much as I initially thought it would, because Clarke always zooms to interesting people and times, and provides fascinating background and little-known facts for each.  It's almost like watching a series of History Channel presentations on notable people and events in England and France from 1066 to the present day.  You get an episode on each, and each is intriguing.

Clarke does a good job of being fair, in a way- he doesn't put the British up on a pedestal (most of the time), and when he does, it's in an obviously-nationalistic way, and tongue-in-cheek.  He recognizes that all people and nations have dark moments, and so he doesn't try to hide Britain's- he just focuses on France's.  It almost comes across as the playful kidding of long-time neighbors, sitting on a porch reminiscing about the funny or foolish things they did in their lives.  It's just a one-sided conversation, with one neighbor getting the limelight, and using it to say "look at you silly French people and your ridiculous antics over the years."

Rating: A

The Wall (Alistair Moffat)

Name the biggest historical monument in Britain.  It's not the Tower of London, Westminster Abbey, or any of the countless castles, cathedrals, or Churches that dot the English countryside- it's Hadrian's Wall.  Built starting in 122 by the Roman Emperor Hadrian, the intent was to secure the border of the Roman Empire from the marauding 'barbarians' north of the line, in modern day extreme northern England and Scotland (the wall is not the modern border between England and Scotland, but it's somewhat close).

The Wall tells the story of this impressive achievement, though be warned- the majority of the book is leading up to the construction.  It starts when Rome first set foot on the island- during the reign of Julius Caesar, more than 170 years before Hadrian.  Moffat briefly takes the reader through Roman occupation of the island, speeding through the Emperors (and their victories and trials in conquering Britain).  The story of Rome in Britain is one of oscillating imperial focus- many emperors, when they first came to power, would make conquest a priority (as a show of their strength- both in Britain and elsewhere), then settle down and consolidate as the ever-increasing size of the empire grew unmanageable.  So, in the book, you see various landings and invasions of the southern part of the island, and once their place is secure, oscillating periods of expansion towards the north, and consolidation of the winnings.  This takes place over decades, even centuries.  Legions come and go, sometimes swelling to suppress insurrection or increase holdings, sometimes waning as other parts of the empire require their services.

Eventually, the empire goes into a cycle of consolidation, and Hadrian decides in 122 to construct a wall from coast to coast.  73 miles long, it took about 5 years to build, and it was all done by one man with a shovel.  Just kidding- it took an estimated 30,000 men to build it.  As impressive as that is, there's more.  It wasn't just the wall.  They dug a defensive ditch immediately on the north side of the wall, to increase the height, and another ditch well south of the wall, about 7ft deep and 6ft wide, to prevent tribes from attacking (easily) from that direction.  The wall and ditch formed a ribbon snaking through the countryside- a military zone.  Seems like something they'd use for a long time, right?  Get this- they manned it (at first) for only 20 years, and then decided to build another wall about 70 miles north.  This one, made out of earth, took a lot less time (it was half as long), and was the result of another period of conquest.  They called this one the Antonine Wall.  Then, predictably, it grew problematic, so they fell back to Hadrian's Wall, and used it to varying degrees, with varying success, for the next several centuries (they'd return to the Antonine Wall, too, during the aforementioned periods of conquest- it was all a back-and-forth affair).  Rome fell apart in the 400s, and it appears that, by 410, most of the island was abandoned by Rome to fend for itself, and predictably, the wall fell into disrepair.  Over the centuries, the stone in many areas was taken and used for local buildings, so that parts have disappeared entirely.  There are some nice ruins, though- I'll review them in a later post.


This book is chock-full of information.  Lots of information about the Roman empire and tidbits of trivia regarding Roman (and British) life abound.  You'll learn a lot, but a good deal of it will not concern the wall- it just helps put it in context.  It's an impressive structure, and you'll appreciate that after reading this.  On the negative side, the book throws out so many names and dates, it seems impossible to really absorb it all- just focus on the gist of the information.  Also, be prepared for digressions, to discuss random (but interesting) trivia.  In short, if you're interested just in the construction of the wall, then other books would be better, but if you want more of a history of the wall (and Rome in Britain), with good context, this is for you.

Rating: B

Gods and Generals

Gods and Generals is one of my favorite movies of all time.  Based on the book of the same name (by Jeffrey Shaara), it tells of the rise and fall of Stonewall Jackson in the first half of the Civil War (basically, from the war's onset to just prior to Gettysburg).

The Civil War has seen many movies made- what makes this one stand out?  It tells both sides of the story.  Winners write history, and so it's reasonable to expect that accounts are shaded towards the victors.  The Civil War is no different- most are taught a view that definitely paints the south in a negative light.  Is that fair?  Elements are- slavery is clearly wrong.  Yet, both north and south were fighting for right and wrong reasons, and the movie does a good job portraying that.  It's not "evil slave-owning southerners" vs. "righteous northerners;" nor is it "innocent southerners" vs. "oppressive northerners."  The truth is much more complicated, and the film captures that, all while focusing on Stonewall Jackson, and teaching the viewer about this amazing man.  You leave the film feeling as though both north and south had good reasons for fighting for their cause.  That does not mean that both sides were right, but it does show that people holding similar beliefs can arrive at very different conclusions on how to live. 

The film is primarily instructive, so while you have the battle scenes you'd expect, the focus is not on effects, nor on love (one complaint I heard was that there "wasn't sex").  It's not a very "hollywoodized" film. And, at just under 4 hours (theatrical release), to 4 hours 40 minutes (director's cut), either version is not a short movie.  In fact, this is the only movie I've ever seen in theaters that had an intermission.  But, it's worth it.  Watch the film- learn our nation's history- and better understand both sides in the conflict.

Rating: A+

Why do we tell stories?

image from here

50+ posts into my blog, I realized that I haven't yet stated how I analyze the media I critique.  This blog's primary purpose is for me to review books, movies, and any other things I deem interesting, both for me, so I remember, and for you, so you (hopefully) get some benefit as well.  Since everyone looks at the world from a different perspective, it's helpful for you to know how I look at things- specifically, how I look at (and critique) media.  It comes down to why I believe we tell stories.

Mankind has been telling stories since the dawn of our existence, and I believe we tell stories for three reasons: to educate (or enlighten), inspire, and entertain.  I'll look at each more in a moment, but first, I want to discuss why it matters.

Remember that whenever you read a book, watch a movie, listen to music, or enjoy artwork, every piece of media is sending one or more messages.  Don't just 'consume' media- look for the messages.  Look for the education, the inspiration, or the entertainment aspect.  Analyze them- unpack them.  What is the work trying to say?  Messages are always there- and if we just let the them wash over us, giving them little thought, there is a potential for dangerous things to happen.  Why?  Because the message may be wrong, and if we don't realize that, our thinking and beliefs may be unintentionally altered against our will.

"You're crazy," you may be saying right now (or thinking- if you say it, staring at the computer, you may draw unwanted attention).  I may be, but my point is valid.  Let me give an example.  Romantic comedies, quite frequently, start with a girl (or guy) in a relationship, but seldom a perfect one.  Invariably, "Mr. Right" comes along, and the girl ditches her current partner for the new one.  A lot of romantic movies are like this.  Innocent, right?  Wrong.  There's a message here- "it's okay to ditch your partner for the bigger, better deal."  Is that a good message?  The movie would have us believe it- it uses pathos and other tools for convincing us that we want this to happen, we want the girl to end up with the other guy, etc.- but if we think about it, that's really not a good message.  We as humans are inherently discontent, and most people in relationships wonder "what if" from time to time- "what if I was with someone different?"  The right response is for us to appreciate that every human has flaws, and when we're in a relationship, we see our partner's flaws more clearly than other humans.  We may see another come along, and, not knowing their faults, think life would be better with them.  But, would we pursue that thought, and hop from partner to partner, we'd see that, though people are different, and some humans are more compatible than others, everyone is flawed, and thus any relationship we're in will take effort- it will take sacrifice and humility to make it work.  Romantic comedies seldom send that message, and if we absorb them without analysis, we may find ourselves encouraged to pursue that path- a path that may lead to a considerable amount of pain.*  That's just one example, but hopefully you see my point.  If we look at movies without thinking about their messages, we can get into trouble, and find ourselves hoping for things that really aren't ideal.

So, again, every piece of media is sending a message, and I believe the message(s) will fall into one (or more) of the three categories I mention above: to educate, inspire, and entertain. 

To educate: the simple examples would be things that tell us about history, science, or any other facet of the world.  A history book, for example, has a goal to educate about one or many events.  A science book wants to teach you about some natural phenomena.  A memoir may reveal insights into a human's life.  A war movie may help convey how horrible life was in a given situation.  A religious work will reveal worldviews and guidance that help us know how best to live.

To inspire: this has some overlap with education, but think of this as evoking some desire or emotion.  You may not learn anything new, per se, but you may remember things you've forgotten, or bring things to mind that inspire you in some way- either to strive for greatness in some area of life, or appreciate the plight of the Jews during WWII, or to never give up, even in light of horrific odds.  If you're inspired by a movie, you leave it wanting something, or feeling some way.  Moral tales' goal is to inspire, in addition to educating.

To entertain: the idea of entertainment, to me, falls into two categories: enjoying something exceedingly common to our condition, or something uncommon to the experience of most.
Common: We enjoy things here because it's familiar.  We may find a comedy particularly funny because it deals with an experience with which we intensely relate.  People post comic strips at their desk because they relate to them.  We enjoy this because it helps us realize that we're not alone- no matter how odd our situation may be.
Uncommon: We watch action movies because we're (hopefully) not used to car chases, explosions, and gunfights.  We love adventures, ancient wonders, and space escapades- because most of us don't live lives that allow us to experience that sort of thing.

Note that these three areas tie together, and have overlap.  We may be inspired by a movie because an experience the main character has is common to our own.  We may be educated by an adventure flick set in Africa, showing us the terrain and people of an unfamiliar continent.  If a work is good, we'll experience all three of the above.  And, if the work is exceptional, there will be valuable messages in all of the three categories.

This post is not as succinct as I'd like, but hopefully you understand my point.  When I analyze a book or movie, I look for messages, and I look within the framework of the three categories above.  For example, I love the Dark Knight, because it hit on each of the three in multiple ways.  It was entertaining- kept me on the edge of my seat.  It was educational- the Joker made some interesting and valid insights on society, and life in general.  And it was inspirational- you left the movie wanting to think more on these things, wanting to look more at human nature, and what is right or wrong.  To me, that makes it a good movie.

One final comment: I knew a guy in college who would take a notepad to the movies, and take notes throughout each film.  It's a good exercise- try it some time.  Whenever the film makes a point of any kind, write it down, and afterwards, look through your notes, and see what messages emerge.  Then, think on whether or not you agree with them.

*I'm not saying that divorce is never an option- there are valid circumstances for so doing.  But, it's pursued far more often than is good, in today's society.

Punisher

You know how most movies have a plug on the front cover- a praise from a noteworthy source?  Here's a tip: if the most notable recommendation they can muster is from a Cleveland newspaper, you can skip the movie with little fear of missing something good.

The Punisher (the 2004 release, with Tom Jane and John Travolta), is a movie with promise that just never delivers.  The premise is simple enough: an FBI undercover agent kills a local mobster's son, who retaliates by killing said agent's family.  This agent, Frank Castle, becomes the Punisher, a broken hero sworn to avenge- wait, that's not quite right.  He doesn't avenge- he punishes.  His tools are simple: guns, knives, bow and arrow.  His skills are in keeping with a highly-trained agent- no superpowers, just years of training, and an uncanny ability to take direct gun and knife wounds to the chest and recover without medical aid.  He takes no prisoners, and covets no friends. 

The promise of the movie revolves around dealing with pain and loss, and how we react to it.  The movie touches on that in the briefest of ways, but never really resolves it, or examines it in depth.  His choice to take the law into his own hands isn't really examined either; nor is his tendency to create collateral damage (like killing "innocents" who are involved with guilty parties).  It's too bad; the potential is there.  Apart from that, it's your standard shoot-em-up.

This is the second of three Punisher movies ever made, and all three have done poorly.  I haven't seen the 1989 version with Dolph Lundgren, but that's reviewed even more poorly.  Why have they done so many?  It's not as though Punisher is anywhere near as popular as Batman or Spiderman.  Here's why, in my opinion, this keeps getting revisited: in the right hands, it could be an amazing tale.  The effects need not be great- plenty of action movies have been done well- they just need someone to execute well, and weave an examination of the aforementioned issues into the tale.  If they could do that, they'd have a winner.  As it stands, Punisher is 0 for 3 in quality movies.

Rating: D+

The Jungle Book (Rudyard Kipling)

The Jungle Book, by Kipling, is a collection of short stories.  Anyone familiar with the Disney cartoon of the same name will know about Mowgli, Baloo the bear, and their cohorts- three stories concerning them are featured here.  Rikki-Tikki-Tavi, the famous mongoose, also has a story.  There are a few other tales, regarding an elephant master, seals, and a conversation of pack animals.

I'm in the minority here, in that I was disappointed in the effort.  Part of it, no doubt, is due to the edition I read- the free Kindle one- which didn't have proper spacial separation between stories, presentation for the poems, etc.  But, in large, I just didn't find the stories overly interesting.

Rating: C

North York Moors

Some highlights of the North York Moors- the central area of the park is covered in another map below

The North York Moors is one of England's national parks, and a beautiful one at that.  It has a variety of amazing terrain, but it's most famous for the heather moorland, stretching over large areas of the park's 550 square miles.  Scattered throughout the moors are a variety of boundary markers, crosses, mining ruins, and ancient settlements (not to mention hordes of sheep roaming free, and more grouse than you'd ever want to see).  The best time to visit is now (August/September), when the heather is in bloom, casting the land in a brilliant purple.

Before I start the review, keep the following in mind:
- there are many areas I have yet to see; just because it isn't reviewed doesn't mean it isn't worth seeing
- I include Whitby, Scarborough, and Thirsk in this review.  Whitby is surrounded by the park, but technically not a part of it.  The others are nearby.  "So what," I say.

Southwest

The highlights of the southwest moors are the white horse (near Kilburn), Byland Abbey, Helmsley (a quaint town, with a decent castle ruin), Rievaulx Abbey, Visitor's Centre (on the A170), and Sutton Bank (with amazing views).  Outside the park, Thirsk is a quaint town and home of James Herriot (of All Creatures Great and Small fame).  Rievaulx Abbey is probably my favorite abbey in all of England- not as big as Fountains Abbey, but there's something about it I just enjoy.

Entering the park from Kilburn

The white horse- not much to it.

Helmsley Castle

Helmsley

Rievaulx Abbey

Rievaulx Abbey

Rievaulx Abbey

Rievaulx Abbey

Rievaulx Abbey

Byland Abbey

Byland Abbey

Byland Abbey

Stained glass in Thirsk Church

Thirsk Church

Home of James Herriot

Herriot House

Northwest

Roseberry Topping is the highlight here, though Guisborough and its ruined priory are also nice.  The views from Roseberry Topping are amazing on a clear day.  To hike it, park in the town of Newton-under-Roseberry and walk to it.

Farm near Westerdale

Guisborough Priory

Roseberry Topping

Guisborough

View from Roseberry Topping

Hiking up to the summit

View from the summit

Roseberry Topping

Central

The highlight of the park, in my opinion.  There are a number of beautiful moors, towns, and sites, and it's fun to just drive through them (but stopping and hiking is even nicer, if you can manage it).  The Hole of Horcum, right on the A170 (near Levisham), is a natural amphitheater that's impressive; quaint towns like Goathland (with its Mallyan Spout waterfall), Egton Bridge, and Rosedale Abbey abound; and the drives between (for example) Glaisdale and Rosedale Abbey or Hutton-Le-Hole and Castleton are amazing.  The first photo below is the driving plan we used, starting at the Hole of Horcum and ending at Roseberry Topping; it was a great drive.  Finally, Pickering Castle and Thornton-le-Dale are nice places to visit.

A drive that hits highlights of the central moors

The Hole of Horcum

Hiking around the Hole of Horcum

Looking north from the Hole of Horcum

An antique car in Goathland

Mallyan Spout

Hiking to Mallyan Spout

The drive from Egton Bridge to Rosedale Abbey

A property marker

The millenium cross, near Rosedale Abbey

View looking down on Rosedale

Ruins of mining operations, near Rosedale

Young Ralph's Cross, on the drive from Hutton-le-Hole to Castleton

Pickering Castle

Pickering Castle

Pickering Castle

Thornton-le-Dale

Thornton-le-Dale

East

Whitby is the town of primary interest, featuring a ruined abbey, cool Church with graveyard that inspired Bram Stoker to write Dracula, great views of the sea, and great fish and chips.  I've heard good things about Robin Hood's Bay, just south of Whitby. Scarborough, southeast of the park, is okay.

Whitby

Whitby

Whitby

Whitby

Whitby

Whitby

 

Scarborough

Scarborough

Conclusion

Any national park can't been seen in its entirety in a day, or even a weekend.  That said, the North York Moors is worth many visits, for those who live in the area.  The beauty is varied and extensive, and will not disappoint.

Rating: A