Beowulf

Beowulf is an old poem.  Really old.  Anglo-Saxon (before the year 1000) old.  It's a poem of heroes and monsters, of glory and failure.  It's alright.

A work can be famous for its quality, impact, antiquity, or some combination thereof.  I would say that Beowulf is most famous for its antiquity- it's the earliest surviving example of poetry in a modern European language.  That's not to say it's bad- in fact, I'm sure there's symbolism in there that I just didn't get- it's just not "lights out," if you know what I mean.

Here's a spoiler-laden* plot summary: Beowulf, hero of the Geat people, hears of a monster, Grendel, who's terrorizing the nearby Danish kingdom (this is all set in modern Scandinavia).  Beowulf travels to that kingdom, ruled by Hrothgar.  Hrothgar, like many in the book, has a comical name that begins with an 'H.'  Apparently it was a mandate for inclusion in the story.  Anyway, Beowulf slays Grendel, Grendel's mom gets ticked, she goes crazy on the town, Beowulf slays her, too, in an underwater battle that lasts for hours**, and then he gets lots of praise and treasure from Hrothgar.  Beowulf goes back to Geatland, eventually becomes king, rules for 50 years, implements a number of important social reforms***, and then a dragon (who is guarding a treasure horde) comes and goes nuts.  Beowulf slays him, too, but dies in the process.  They build a funeral pyre to him on the shore.

So, is this purely a legend, or was there really such a king?  Are historical elements interwoven?  Is there deep symbolism here, or insights into a bygone era?  Could the people refer to themselves as "Geats" with a straight face?  There are many questions here- questions that demand answers.  You can do Internet searches if you want them- I'm in a decidedly odd mood and need to take a break.

Final analysis: read this if you are interested in a story from an age long gone.

*you've had 1000 years to read this.  I'm not apologizing.
**the scuba gear of the ancients was more advanced than one may think
***we can only assume; the story doesn't elaborate

Rating: B

A Passage to India (E.M. Forster)

This review will be a strange one.  You've been warned.

A Passage to India is hailed as one of the 100 best works in English literature.  Written in the 1920s, it deals with the relationship between Indians and the community of British people that settled there in India as conquerors and rulers.  As you'd expect, there is bigotry, distrust, and awkward relations between the two people groups.

I had no issue with the book, but I stopped reading it 20% of the way through.  It's well-written, and full of wisdom.  So, why did I put it down?  Well, it's not the easiest read (not as hard as Dickens, say, but still difficult to get going), and I felt as though the book wasn't telling me anything I didn't already know.  It's sad, certainly, to see the discrimination between races, and the condescending attitude of the Brits towards the people of their colonies, but not surprising.  If you're interested in race relations, I think you'll really like this book, and I didn't put it down lightly.  I just have many other things to read, and those things, frankly, pique my curiosity more.

I will share one quote that I found very appropriate:

"As for Miss Quested [A Brit who wanted to learn about India], she accepted everything Aziz [An Indian] said as true verbally.  In her ignorance, she regarded him as 'India,' and never surmised that his outlook was limited and his method inaccurate, and that no one is India."

As an American who has lived in Germany and England, I've found many people (myself included) basing their opinions of entire countries on interactions with one or two locals.  Talk to a German you like, and you think Germany's great.  Find a German you don't, and Germany's awful.  Or, ask a German for their opinion, and take their answer as being a true representation for the whole country.  The fact is, like America, each nation has individuals of many different perspectives and attitudes, and so trying to understand a country by talking to a few invariably leads to skewed outlooks.

Rating: A-

V for Vendetta (Alan Moore/David Lloyd)

The second (and final) graphic novel on my British reading list, V for Vendetta is another work by Alan Moore.  Set in the 'future' (well, the late '90s, but this was written in the early '80s), it envisions a post-nuclear-war world, where England is ruled by fascists, and freedom has disappeared.  V, the main character, commits a number of terrorist acts against the oppressive regime, with the intent of toppling the government and freeing the people.

An additional focus of the story is his relationship with Evey, a lost and wandering girl, whom he takes in, and shows her true freedom by first showing her how locked up she is- how much of a prison their current world has become.  As he puts it, "I didn't put you in a prison- I just showed you the bars."  He puts her through several tests, severely psychological in nature, and gets her to the point where she is truly free- a point which, he claims, exists only when one is willing to die before sacrificing their principles.  He implies that the current government exists only because the people let their freedom be taken from them, by strong-willed, evil forces, and that they valued comfort- in this case, a prison- over standing for what they truly believed.  He insinuates that the way to get freedom back is to throw off the desire for comfort and follow what you believe- even if it will result in your death.  "Freedom is terrifying," he says, as a rationale why people avoid it.

Overall, the work was good, and made several interesting points.  First and foremost, this idea of freedom being terrifying, and people preferring comfort and cages.  I think there is some truth there, not only in society, but inside our souls.  We're slaves to sin- fallen- and without external revelation and assistance, want to remain that way.  When shown freedom, we might embrace it, but also long to return to slavery- it's what we know, and what comforts us.  Freedom is scary because it means we're responsible- responsible for our actions, our decisions, and directions.  If we're oppressed, we may not be happy, but at least we're not responsible for it- or so we think.  We are responsible- responsible for letting ourselves be oppressed.  I believe that's the message Moore is trying to convey here.

Returning to the idea of governments and societies, the same idea holds, and I see two levels of freedom.  As an American, I look back with pride on the accomplishments of our forefathers- but am reminded that they sacrificed their comfort and security for the bold ideas of freedom.  In many cases, they gave their lives, because they valued principle over comfort.  It must have been terrifying for them- but worthwhile.  This first level of freedom is something that Americans, and most of the west, embrace- the idea of a free government, to freely hold elections, etc.  While we may not all be brave enough to fight or give our lives for it, I believe we value it.  In V for Vendetta, the society does not- or at least, it does not value it enough to fight for it.  There is a second level, though, that's harder to embrace- the freedom to live life outside of the expectations of society.  How much do we do because we want to, or because we believe it's right?  Do we do things because they're expected?  Who expects them?  Are those things always valuable?  I'm not necessarily talking about grand things here- it could be something as small as going to college, taking a job because it pays well, wearing fashionable clothing, etc.  Things most of us do, if we can, whether or not we want to, or think we should.  We do it because it's expected.  That doesn't mean it's bad, inherently- it just raises the question of how often we live that way, and whether or not that is a prison in and of itself.  This is a good concept to think on- and I like that V for Vendetta does so.

On the downside, I was a little confused at times by this effort- some people look similar in the artwork, so it's occasionally difficult to work out who's who, and the story line is convoluted at times.  I like The Watchmen more, though both are worthwhile.

Rating: A-

King Solomon's Mines (H. Rider Haggard)

A rollicking adventure yarn that has inspired many (most notably, George Lucas and his Indiana Jones), King Solomon's Mines is the story of a team who seeks the legendary wealth of the Biblical king.  They begin in South Africa, and trek over a thousand miles north, through desert, over mountain, and into lands long isolated.  As you'd expect, many adventures befall them on the way.  Do they find the mines?  Do they acquire the wealth which they seek?  You can guess the answer- but read and find out.

This story was written in response to a challenge- specifically, to write something as good as Stevenson's Treasure Island.  Is succeeds.  While I wouldn't say I found much new here, I suspect this is a book that inspired many over the years- so it seems unoriginal only because so many have copied it.  Indeed, it captured the minds of many at its publication (1885), and many more since.  It's well-written, amusing, and full of adventure.  There are several quote-worthy phrases throughout; perhaps my favorite follows.  "Truly wealth, which men spend their lives in acquiring, is a valueless thing at the last."

Rating: A

Conquest (Stewart Binns)

When writing historical fiction, the author must remember two things (among others):
1) the characters don't know their future; you do.  Don't let your knowledge bleed into theirs.
2) when gaps exist in the historical record, fill them with things that are plausible.

Conquest by Stewart Binns fails on these two points.  It deals with the story of Hereward the Wake, an Anglo-Saxon who lived before (and during) William's conquest of England in 1066.  It reads easily enough, but I read only a quarter of the novel before deciding to give up.  The plot has a number of implausible meetings and dialogue, and the characters demonstrate an uncanny knowledge of the future (phrases like "I know you'll be instrumental in history" are prevalent, with no basis for such comments).  Additionally, because history of this time period is so foggy, there has to be much speculation; sadly, the author's insertions are better suited for a pure fantasy novel (the best example is this magical amulet that just happens to weave its way into the story).

There is a little value here, but not enough for me to finish the book.  For now, Bernard Cornwell is my historical fiction author of choice.

Rating: D

2012

It's only fitting that I review the movie 2012 this year.  Based on the Mayan calendar (which ends in December 2012), this is a disaster movie to end them all.  Its premise: changes in the Earth's core will cause global upheaval and flooding, resulting in wiping out all life, in 2012.  Scientists studying the core years before realize the situation, and inform respective governments.  Those governments, in turn, build several huge 'arks' to prepare, filling them with the world's treasures and anyone who can afford to buy a ticket.  The story centers on an American family as they experience the event, and try to stave off elimination.  They happen upon these arks, discover their purpose, and sneak on board at the end.

The film was largely panned by critics- but I happened to enjoy it.  The effects were amazing, and give one an impression of what it must have been like to experience the Biblical flood.  But the main thing I liked is also my main criticism: the movie raises a tremendously interesting social question- what would governments do if they knew years beforehand that the Earth would be destroyed?  In the movie, they keep the public in the dark, and tell only the wealthy, wise, and powerful about the situation.  They want to preserve the brightest minds (and, apparently, the richest).  The arks are built in secret in China, and the world's masterpieces are secretly transported there- anyone who knows about the situation, and is tempted to reveal it, gets killed.  It seems harsh, but what is the alternative?  Tell the people, and it would be reasonable to expect widespread panic and chaos.  Is it right to save only the wise and wealthy?  Is it good to keep billions in the dark to preserve peace, and save only those who can afford it, or who are blessed with extreme intellect?  Would the alternative be pandemonium, and cause the death of the human race?  Is this deception necessary to continue the species?  These are great questions, that bear much discussion.  Sadly, the movie passes over these, and focuses instead on the action and thrill.  I give it a decent rating for at least looking at the question- it could have been an amazing film if it had even attempted an answer.

Rating: B

Magna Carta

The Magna Carta is one of the world's most important government documents.  Written in 1215, its intent was to secure rights and liberties for those in England (and Wales).  It was written by powerful barons who wished to 'corral' the king (King John (reigned 1199-1216), of Robin Hood fame) by giving rights to freemen, thus preventing the King's arbitrary decisions and random seizing of property.  It was, of course, also to protect the barons themselves.  It is, in a way, an early Constitution.

The document consists of 63 articles.  Some are excellent statements on human liberty (like 39 and 40); some are seemingly random statements (like 23); some are statements on where courts should be convened (17), how loans to Jews should be repaid (10,11), property rights (30,31), etc.- a lot of topics are covered.  Towards the end (61), the barons set up a council that will ensure enforcement.  There are a lot of good things here.  There are several different versions- I read this one, but believe this one is an easier read.

I don't know much about the document's enforcement; I believe King John went against it shortly after its creation.  But, it is a foundational work, and led to more developed statements of rights later in history.  It's well worth the reading.

Rating: A