Classic Remarks: Favorite Picture Book – Saint George and the Dragon

What is your favorite classic picture book? Or you can tell us about a picture book you think will or should become a classic.

I have written of this once before, but one of the most magical books from my childhood was Saint George and the Dragon, retold from Edmund Spenser’s Faerie Queene by Margaret Hodges, and illustrated by Trina Schart Hyman.

Please permit me the indulgence of quoting from my old post on the subject (linked above), as that post was answering essentially the same question as this.


This slideshow requires JavaScript.

This is the knightly quest told in its purest form…

…the true attraction is really the art by Trina Schart Hyman…The weather is present in her images, whether wind or blue sky, clouds or boiling dragon-smoke. Her Fair Folk are wispy, like they might blow away at any moment, her Red Cross Knight (George) exudes strength and pure-heartedness, and her Princess Una is a vision of loveliness, quiet strength, and deep feeling.

…The battle of the dragon and knight is exciting and well-paced. You really feel the energy that both of them exert, and when after the first day of fighting the Red Cross Knight falls exhausted and wounded to sleep by “an ancient spring of silvery water,” and Una comes up to cover him with a cloak, in the picture you can hear the brook bubbling and the crickets singing as cool nighttime descends.

…It’s a fairy tale given the breath of life.


Advertisements

Classic Remarks: Should “Lolita” be assigned in schools?

Should we be assigning Lolita in schools or is it taking up valuable syllabus space another book should have?

This is another case where I have not read the subject book, Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita. I have never been required to read it, nor have I desired to. However, I am familiar with it in summary and reputation. Based on this, I would most definitely keep it out of school syllabi, except possibly for a college course in which the novel’s subject matter of pedophilia and psychiatry would be deemed relevant. I would be interested to hear from someone who has read or studied the book.

The story follows a man calling himself Humbert Humbert who obsessively lusts after young girls, especially a flirtatious and manipulative 12 year-old called Lolita with whom he has a perverse and torrid affair for several years. Humbert narrates his ugly, evil actions in beautiful, sophisticated prose designed to win the reader’s sympathy. There’s a deliberate contrast between the way he writes and the way he acts. Yet even though he labors to prove he is not insane and to justify his life and actions, his story still ends in violence and loneliness.

As I understand it, Nabokov fully intends for us to despise Humbert and his sins. He also seems to scorn psychiatrists (especially those in the Freudian tradition) who seek simplistic ways to understand human behavior. One may do terrible, despicable things and yet still be a complex human being. Likewise, one may be a complex human being and yet still be justly condemned for choosing to do (and to enjoy) terrible, despicable things.

Do students, even up to the high school level, need to explore the crime of pedophilia in detail? And from the viewpoint of a charismatic predator? I don’t think so. Warn kids against strangers and teach them how to stay safe, by all means! But I see no reason why high school students (or younger) should be required to read a book that dramatizes such a traumatizing perversion from the viewpoint of the predator. From what I can tell, any important lesson in the book could also be gained from other powerful books that don’t dramatize pedophilia so graphically.

Looking at my own high school self, I guess that if I had read Lolita then, I would have been disgusted and disturbed, with those affects lasting, and would not have received much of any redeeming value in return. As opposed to something like Night by Elie Wiesel, which was disturbing in a way that was important and eye-opening. Night causes the reader to challenge prejudice and oppression by forcing us to confront the humanity of the victims and the injustice they have suffered, whereas Lolita gives us only the viewpoint of an unrepentant sexual predator.

Movie Review: “The Secret of Roan Inish” (1993)

“The Secret of Roan Inish” is both magical and comfortably down-to-earth in all its elements.

The Secret of Roan Inish (1993) (IMdB)
Director: John Sayles
Writers: John Sayles (screenplay) and Rosalie Fry (book)
Starring: Jeni Courtney, Mick Lally, Eileen Colgan, Richard Sheridan, John Lynch
Music by: Mason Daring
Length: 89 minutes
Rating (US): PG
Spoiler-free Synopsis: Young Fiona lives with her grandparents in a small fishing village on the Irish west coast and begins unraveling family mysteries while searching for her lost baby brother.
Reason for Watching: Selkie movie. Perfect movie.
Movie Re-watchability: Eminently, for me. It’s been a favorite film for many years and has never failed to inspire or move me.
Director Re-watchability: I haven’t seen Sayles’ other films, but have heard that each one is completely different. That speaks to a tremendous range in his abilities as a storyteller, but also makes it hard to determine whether I’d like his other ones. His style in this film, however, is one that suits me perfectly.
Recommendation: YES.

Key Thoughts

Continue reading “Movie Review: “The Secret of Roan Inish” (1993)”

C.S. Lewis on the Right Way to Read Classics

Love and Mercy

You probably know C.S. Lewis for his imaginative Narnia fiction or perhaps for his non-fiction works on Christianity, but many are unaware of the groundbreaking and brilliant work he did within his scholarly field. Lewis was a Fellow and Tutor in English Literature at Oxford and the premier professor of Medieval and Renaissance literature at Cambridge, so his knowledge of greater literature itself was deep and profound. His students and colleagues were frequently amazed by his astonishing recall of minute detail in obscure works. He would play a game with you when you came to his office where he would have you pull down any book off his shelf and read a random passage out of it. He would tell you the work, author, and quote the surrounding context. Suffice it to say, the man knew his stuff.

CS-Lewis-on-the-Reading-of-Old-BooksBeing that Lewis had his ears to the ground with his students…

View original post 1,000 more words

Classic Remarks: A Classic Book that Translates Well to Film

One classic in particular has always seemed to be particularly suited to adaptations…

Recommend a classic book that you think translated particularly well to screen (even if the adaptation was not entirely faithful).

Happily there are many films that count as successful adaptations of their source books. Some changed a lot in order to make a unique and successful film, such as The Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, The Princess Bride, and most adaptations of The Three Musketeers. Others managed to be remarkably faithful to the book’s plot, tone, and themes. One classic in particular has always seemed to be particularly suited to adaptations.

Treasure Island by Robert Louis Stevenson may be one of the most easily-adapted of classic books. It has over fifty adaptations for film and television, and most of the ones I’ve seen have been pretty faithful. The book’s plot is clear, efficient, and colorful. It doesn’t need elaboration, condensation, or drastic changes. It contains no extraneous subplots, which would either distract in a film or be first for the cutting floor. The action itself develops the characters and plot so well that an adaptation needs only to follow Stevenson’s layout to get an exciting feature length movie that doesn’t leave much out. Even the looser adaptations, such as the anarchic Muppet Treasure Island, still feature scenes and dialogue lifted directly from Stevenson. Why mess with what works?

My favorite adaptations are the 1934 and 1950 versions, starring Wallace Beery and Robert Newton as Long John Silver, respectively. These actors exude so much slimy charisma and chew their lines with such mischievous relish that it’s a delight to watch them. And each also brings out the desperate menace and corrupted dignity of Stevenson’s iconic character.Honorable mentions go to many of Shakespeare’s plays, especially Romeo and Juliet, which has been faithfully adapted in many surprising ways, and Richard Lester’s two-film adaptation of The Three Musketeers, which is shockingly and successfully faithful to a book whose many adaptations rarely resemble its actual plot.

Classic Remarks: Favorite Musketeer

All for one, and the one is…

Which of Dumas’ Musketeers is your favorite, and why?

For the musketeers of Alexandre Dumas’ swashbuckling stories, we have D’Artagnan, Athos, Aramis, and Porthos. They are the most interesting and effective when all together, which makes it a bit difficult to single one out as a favorite. Additionally, it is worth considering their various portrayals in adaptations, since the characters of The Three Musketeers are probably better known in adaptation than in their original novel.

Speaking generally, I can say my favorite musketeer is Porthos. He’s the loud, boisterous, fun fellow, always ready to make others laugh, even when being threatened with a duel. Always loyal to his friends, though I suppose that rather characterizes all the Four. He’s fun in the book, but I also admit to my choice being influenced by the 1993 Disney film, where he was played with cheerful wit by Oliver Platt. Behold:

Frank Finlay also played Porthos quite well, if drier, in the excellent 1973 film. Witness his unique solution to uncorking a wine bottle while the musketeers seek a peaceful breakfast and private conversation in the middle of a siege:

Portho’s charisma and enthusiasm for life makes him a natural favorite for many fans, and I suppose I’m not immune to that charm either.