2007-09-09

one of those universal truths....

I am not the first person to believe today's celebrity gossip is yesterday's news of neighbours. Nor am I the first person to notice that, whenever you get a group of women who -- in some cases -- are just getting to know each other together in the same room, they will end up talking about famous people they don't know at all. Mmm, like Clive Owen.
Or better yet, Ewan McGregor, who I and friends love-fested tonight.

How do Hollywood crushes relate to books?

The star of such great films as Moulin Rouge, Trainspotting, and more just so happens to be an author. Read the excerpt here.


*note: I've probably written about this before. I'm okay with that.

2007-09-06

quelle personality

I caught this on another blog -- the highlight isn't even the design question. It's the angry, hilarious comments.....

a soldier's story

A friend and I had a few confusing moments last week when I was sick. Stricken with laryngitis and self-loathing, I agreed to most all things and really wasn’t listening to anything at all. She is a very good person who apparently offered to purchase a new book for me at a book reading featuring Journal writer Liane Faulder and the man she was writing about, Canadian soldier and medic Master Cpl. Paul Franklin.

(The reading was less of a reading and more of a staged interview, which makes me wonder if Faulder could return from her Massey College fellowship next year to a talk show of her own. I suggest it be called, “Faulder!” Exclamation point necessary.)

Anyway, I apparently asked for the book, The Long Walk Home, and regardless of whether this conversation actually occurred, my friend got it for me.

Very good for me, turns out.

Ever since Faulder did a full feature on Franklin last year -- correction, ever since I first heard she was working on a book about his experiences -- I have wanted to read it. The soldier’s humility aside, he is a war hero. Simple as that. And he is probably the most recognizable face of Edmonton’s contribution to the war in Afghanistan.

So is his wife, Audra. She always seemed so available to the media, so tough and clear-headed. Faulder had unusual access to their family life in the year after Franklin’s G-Wagon was attacked.

I first encountered Franklin last summer at a military funeral for Pte. Robert Costall. It was frankly impossible not to stare as his wife helped him out of a wheelchair so he could stand on his artificial legs for as long as everyone else did.

It looked bloody painful. The soldier looked like a man who was going to stand through the pain, because that was the least he could do in memory of his fallen comrade.

Forget your feelings about war in general and war in Afghanistan specifically. How can you not respect a man like Paul Franklin?

How can you not cry, just a little bit, for his little boy?

Faulder’s book is, hands-down, a must-read. There are whole chapters wherein I felt like I was in Afghanistan myself, and experiencing the suicide bomb that killed a Canadian diplomat and ripped one of Franklin’s legs from his body.

That’s just good, detailed writing, very much in the clear and straightforward style of newspaper features or magazines. There is no faction here.

At the very start, Faulder goes out of her way to say this is not a story of Canada’s contribution to Afghanistan, but I would argue it really, really is.

Yes, it is one man’s story.

But this is a story, I believe, that will stand the test of time. It speaks to how Canadians thought about this war, how it, perhaps, took us by surprise. How we were all so naïve to think we could go to war after Sept. 11, 2001, without suffering any casualties.

It also reflects Edmonton’s story. I have lived in this city for two years now, and would argue the story of a slowly growing military -- the story of a clearly over-exerted force -- is very real in this city’s streets and in its Tim Hortons outlets. I am the granddaughter of a military family, and I know that Edmonton has always been home to the armed forces. Faulder writes it as such. She tells us about people who want to stop Paul Franklin on the street and tell him he’s done his country proud -- I know, I sound just a little bit like the fifth grader I once was, who won prizes (and cash) for her essays on war heroism. Can’t help it.

“I didn’t fight off ten Taliban or charge a trench with a bayonet. My heroism has, in a sense, been here in Canada as I try to recover.” (Franklin said.)
He believed anybody could be a hero…. “It’s tenacity and strength of character that saves your butt,” he said.
(p. 141)

reunion!

There are actors and actresses who meet again and again on screen -- pretty much always for good.

Examples: Katharine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy. Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks.

And now.... (drum roll).... Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio. In a movie based on a book, no less. (Which is really no surprise -- have you noticed lately how difficult it is to find books that don't have pictures of Matt Damon or Scarlett Johansson on their covers?)

Most girls of a certain age (in their teens during the late 90s) happen to have at least one copy of Titanic in their VHS collections. I'm one of them. And I'm a little excited these two excellent thespians are getting back together on the silver screen....

(NOTE: I'm back online! At home! Yay! So I might go overboard the next few days with posts. I kind of have lots I've been waiting to say and unwilling to go to the nearest wireless hotspot to say it....)

channeling Austen

(May I preface this entry by apologizing to my friend Erin, who thinks she does not like Jane Austen -- and so is probably sick of reading about her on this blog -- even though she’s only ever read Persuasion. Not that I could ever judge someone for making such a decision since I think I do not like Mordecai Richler even though I have only ever read the first 30 pages of Barney’s Version. Three times. But Erin has never read Pride and Prejudice, regarded in most circles as Austen’s best book and one of the best English-language works of the late 17th century.So I think I’ve finally found her.

The One.
The character created by Jane Austen who I can best identify with.
If Austen’s women were characters in Sex and the City, I think most people would identify with Elizabeth Bennet the way most women think they are shades of Carrie Bradshaw. Miss Bennet has the best lines, Ms. Bradshaw the best shoes. Miss Bennet sees the irony all around her, ditto Ms. Bradshaw. Mr. Darcy? Mr. Big.

For those who see themselves a bit more Charlotte, I offer up Sense and Sensibility’s Marianne -- ever the dreamy, frankly not-swift romantic.

Samantha? The sexually avant garde Ms. Jones does not lend herself to 17th- or early 18th- century comparison. Mr. Wickham was too much a cad. Mary Crawford too sly. Mr. Willoughby too stupid.

Now, I have always thought of myself as something of a Miranda. Career-driven. Cake-driven. Prone to obsessing the failures of technology.

Miranda isn’t just commitment-phobic. She doesn’t need to be in a romantic relationship.
Love it, love her.
Love Emma.
Just hear me out for a second.
I have no familiarity whatsoever with Northanger Abbey. But the balance of Austen’s work is about relationships between men and women. Not love stories, really, though certainly stories about the importance of marriage.

Not necessarily marriage for love -- though that’s all well and good if you can put aside your pride and your prejudice, etc. etc. Instead, marriage to keep a woman going, keep her under a roof with food in her mouth, yadda yadda.
But Austen’s Emma deals with a girl who does not need to marry at all. Emma Woodhouse will do perfectly well, thank you very much, with a very large inheritance. And, while “it is a truth universally acknowledged that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife,” not so for a single woman in possession of the same.

Thank you very much.
Yes, Emma is snobby. Very smart, but given to stupidity because she lets her imagination run away with her.
(Me! Me!)
But she isn’t some wimpy Anne Elliot. Or sad sack Fanny Price. Or chin-up martyr Elinor Dashwood. Or vaguely bull-shitting Elizabeth Bennet.
Emma doesn’t just think she doesn’t need a man.
She knows it.
She thrives on friendships and family. She honestly wants for nothing.
Take this haughty line, in the middle of a heated argument with her sister’s brother-in-law, Mr. Knightley:
“Oh! To be sure,” cried Emma. “It is always incomprehensible to a man that a woman should ever refuse an offer of marriage. A man always imagines a woman to be ready for anyone who asks her.”

I know, I know, just halfway through the book I’m getting ahead of myself.
Anyone who’s familiar with the Austen formula, or who has watched Clueless, knows what will happen. Emma will surely get her come-uppance. Probably more than once. She’ll realize snobbery is bad, or at least not to be celebrated as a virtue. She’ll hook up with the naggy brother-in-law. Who seemed rather less naggy and more hot when played by Paul Rudd.
I guess I might just be early Emma, rather than fully-developed Emma.