In speaking of translating between Cherokee and English, the narrator, Will Cooper, in telling his story in the book Thirteen Moons by Charles Frazier, makes this observation:
"... our two languages are not particularly suited to being rendered into each other. And so if you try to do it literally, you end up with a lot of foolishness. On our side of the translation, you get O Great White Father. Many moons ago. Forked tongue. Fire water. Utterances like those of articulate and very pompous children. I'm not sure what you get in the other direction. I assume we sound equally foolish. All translations miss something. Some miss almost everything. Irony. Indirection. Complex metaphors. Straight-faced humor. Damped-down anger. The human touch."
This book misses none of these things. The quality of writing and storytelling that earned such high praise for Cold Mountain is in this book as well. The way I "read" it is by listening to it on CD read by the actor Will Patton, as good a voice for the Will of the story as I think anyone could find.
It is the story of a man remembering his life nearing its end. As an orphan bound to a merchant as his trading post keeper when he was only 12 or 13, the boy turns out to be a natural businessman. He allies himself with the Cherokee Indians in the mountains of Georgia, particularly a chief named Bear. Will helps them from being moved to reservations in the West by insensitive politicians from Andrew Jackson on.
The trading post owner to whom Will is bound falls on bad times and sells his stores and their inventory to Will (who had by that time saved some money from his store keeping), as well as giving him freedom from the contract his uncle signed in binding him over to this man. Floating in and out of the story is the love of his life, Clare, whom he never permanently connects with. Will compiles many descriptors for his resume: gambler, white chief, owner of vast tracts of land, politician, Confederate colonel, entrepreneur, lawyer. How he comes by these is what this book is about.
What makes it special is the quality of writing. Sometimes an author does a good job of describing events and people. Sometimes an author brings people alive and makes you feel you know them or want to know them. Like Ivan Doig, that is Frazier's special gift: the ability to turn a phrase, to take you to that time and place, to embed the story in you so you remember it long from now. The audio version is wonderful, but whether you read or listen, I hope you'll be moved by my description to find out for yourself why this is a great book.
—John Woods, June 29, 2007
Friday, June 29, 2007
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
The Conflict That Isn't
Chris Matthews had Ann Coulter on his show on Tuesday night and she made several stupid remarks about any number of subjects, including about John Edwards. Elizabeth Edwards called in to ask her politely to refrain from lowering the quality of political discourse in this country. Of course, Coulter simply pushed the accelerator and made more such remarks. Today (June 27) Matthews is now acting as if there is a feud between John and Elizabeth Edwards and Ann Coulter. I could not resist sending the following e-mail to Matthews about this:
First of all, there is no conflict between Edwards and Coulter, except that which you are trying to create. Don't do this, Chris—it doesn't become you. John Edwards is a civilized person, as is Elizabeth Edwards. They have no fight with Ann Coulter. Their issue is with behavior and language that lowers the quality of our political discourse—it's not personal.
Ann Coulter, on the other hand, does not value civility and is a panderer to those who aren't deep thinkers and are ripe for exploitation, which she does for her personal benefit. It's a shame that you would even give her air time. I think in doing so you kind of lower yourself to her level strictly for ratings. You can deny that, but I think deep down you know that and want to use her outrageousness for your personal benefit. I'm pretty sure that as a former Peace Corps Volunteer, which is a testament to your character, you know what I'm saying has the ring of truth. I guess the fact is that you have 50 minutes to fill up every night and intelligent discourse just doesn't attract an audience.
I think a while ago Coulter wrote a book praising Senator McCarthy—that's not surprising. She has clearly taken a page from his book—saying anything to get attention. But Chris, like Joseph Welch, maybe you should have asked her "Ann, have you no shame? Have you no shame?" And then send her on her way.
—John Woods, June 27, 2007
First of all, there is no conflict between Edwards and Coulter, except that which you are trying to create. Don't do this, Chris—it doesn't become you. John Edwards is a civilized person, as is Elizabeth Edwards. They have no fight with Ann Coulter. Their issue is with behavior and language that lowers the quality of our political discourse—it's not personal.
Ann Coulter, on the other hand, does not value civility and is a panderer to those who aren't deep thinkers and are ripe for exploitation, which she does for her personal benefit. It's a shame that you would even give her air time. I think in doing so you kind of lower yourself to her level strictly for ratings. You can deny that, but I think deep down you know that and want to use her outrageousness for your personal benefit. I'm pretty sure that as a former Peace Corps Volunteer, which is a testament to your character, you know what I'm saying has the ring of truth. I guess the fact is that you have 50 minutes to fill up every night and intelligent discourse just doesn't attract an audience.
I think a while ago Coulter wrote a book praising Senator McCarthy—that's not surprising. She has clearly taken a page from his book—saying anything to get attention. But Chris, like Joseph Welch, maybe you should have asked her "Ann, have you no shame? Have you no shame?" And then send her on her way.
—John Woods, June 27, 2007
Sunday, June 24, 2007
The American Public
I have been reading a piece in the Sunday (June 24) NY Times about how the British press tears its politicians apart. The article specifically talks about Tony Blair and how both the press and public have turned against him. It points out that politicians have the tendency, and Blair fell into this tendency, to blame the press for how the public has come to dislike him of late, as he leaves office. One of the points made in this article is that the various factions of the press actually just reflect the prejudices of their readers, and they deviate from these prejudices at their own peril. In other words, don't blame the press, blame the groups of people who read and buy into the stuff they publish to sell their papers in the first place.
This started me thinking about how American politicians all have a tendency to speak about the "American public" as if this were a national behemoth without difference among the people who make up this public. Further, one politician or another has a tendency to tear down his or her opponent as not representing the "will of the American public."
To take it yet a step further, we blame this war in Iraq on George Bush and Dick Cheney, among others, while, like the British press and the readers it represents, it may be more realistic to blame it on the "majority" of people who were responsible for their election. Still, politicians, who want to win, have to curry favor from voters, even those who voted for Bush, and thus are shy about criticizing the judgment these people showed in voting for a particular candidate, regardless of the honesty of such criticism.
So instead they blame the person they are running against and claim to better represent the will and the best interests of the American public. I can't tell you how many times I have thought about yelling back at the TV when a politician of some stripe makes a claim about the American public and what it wants. I long to tell this person, "I think I'm part of that public, and you aren't talking about how I feel about some issue—not even close." In other words, he or she is not talking about me.
M0st often these days it is the Republicans who raise my ire. Also in the Times today, we read about how the Republicans have sought to undermine the energy bill working its way through Congress, gutting any mandatory goals for generating energy from wind and solar or improving gas mileage standards. For the life of me, I can' t understand why they do this and what group of people they represent. I can assure you it is not any member of the public I know.
What I'd like to see is politicians refrain from the use of the term "the American public" and instead honestly state in whose real interests they are spouting one position or another. That would be refreshing but highly unlikely. Like the press in Britain whose prejudices reflect those of their readers, so that seems to be true of the party currently in power. In America, we elect the people who misunderstand the issues closest to the way a majority of the electorate misunderstands them. Sadly over the past 6 years or so, that misunderstanding has been profound, and thus we are in the fix we now find ourselves in with regard to climate change, health care, a needless war in Iraq, culture wars, immigration, you name it.
Perhaps it requires numerous crises of this nature to awaken us from our current prejudices (note the standing of Bush in the polls). Then next time maybe we will elect someone who reflects a slightly more enlightened view of things. Though that view may be distorted as well, perhaps it will be less toxic and even aimed at making things better for both the fortunate and less fortunate among us than what we have endured since 2001. I certainly hope so.
—John Woods, June 24, 2007
This started me thinking about how American politicians all have a tendency to speak about the "American public" as if this were a national behemoth without difference among the people who make up this public. Further, one politician or another has a tendency to tear down his or her opponent as not representing the "will of the American public."
To take it yet a step further, we blame this war in Iraq on George Bush and Dick Cheney, among others, while, like the British press and the readers it represents, it may be more realistic to blame it on the "majority" of people who were responsible for their election. Still, politicians, who want to win, have to curry favor from voters, even those who voted for Bush, and thus are shy about criticizing the judgment these people showed in voting for a particular candidate, regardless of the honesty of such criticism.
So instead they blame the person they are running against and claim to better represent the will and the best interests of the American public. I can't tell you how many times I have thought about yelling back at the TV when a politician of some stripe makes a claim about the American public and what it wants. I long to tell this person, "I think I'm part of that public, and you aren't talking about how I feel about some issue—not even close." In other words, he or she is not talking about me.
M0st often these days it is the Republicans who raise my ire. Also in the Times today, we read about how the Republicans have sought to undermine the energy bill working its way through Congress, gutting any mandatory goals for generating energy from wind and solar or improving gas mileage standards. For the life of me, I can' t understand why they do this and what group of people they represent. I can assure you it is not any member of the public I know.
What I'd like to see is politicians refrain from the use of the term "the American public" and instead honestly state in whose real interests they are spouting one position or another. That would be refreshing but highly unlikely. Like the press in Britain whose prejudices reflect those of their readers, so that seems to be true of the party currently in power. In America, we elect the people who misunderstand the issues closest to the way a majority of the electorate misunderstands them. Sadly over the past 6 years or so, that misunderstanding has been profound, and thus we are in the fix we now find ourselves in with regard to climate change, health care, a needless war in Iraq, culture wars, immigration, you name it.
Perhaps it requires numerous crises of this nature to awaken us from our current prejudices (note the standing of Bush in the polls). Then next time maybe we will elect someone who reflects a slightly more enlightened view of things. Though that view may be distorted as well, perhaps it will be less toxic and even aimed at making things better for both the fortunate and less fortunate among us than what we have endured since 2001. I certainly hope so.
—John Woods, June 24, 2007
Friday, June 22, 2007
Les Miserables—The Modern Version
I just completed watching a movie I try to see every year or two. It is called Les Miserables, directed by Claude Lalouche. It is not the Les Miserables we all know, but a story that parallels Victor Hugo's classic tale. It stars Jean Paul Belmondo, whose lined face seems to capture every kind of human experience and who is perfect for this role. The movie is the story of a man, Henri Fortin, whose life is compared to that of Jean Valjean, the hero of Hugo's Les Miserables. It is in French with subtitles.
The movie is over 3 hours long and yet when it's over, you're hardly aware that you have been watching it for that long, so engaging and engrossing is it. Fortin helps a Jewish family in many ways during WWII; he becomes involved in the resistance movement. So many things happen to all the characters that it would take too long to describe here, but throughout we see the connections with the famous novel. It is simply a remarkable film—one that I can unreservedly recommend to anyone. It reminds us of the best parts of our humanity. Some will say that it is sentimental. But for me, it is simply one of the best movies ever made.
The version I have is on videotape. I don't even know if a DVD version is available. Several years ago I rented it from a video store and then I bought a copy from Amazon.com—after seeing it the first time, I had to own it. I can promise that if you find it, I think you too will be completely taken with this very unique movie experience.
—John Woods, June 22, 2007
The movie is over 3 hours long and yet when it's over, you're hardly aware that you have been watching it for that long, so engaging and engrossing is it. Fortin helps a Jewish family in many ways during WWII; he becomes involved in the resistance movement. So many things happen to all the characters that it would take too long to describe here, but throughout we see the connections with the famous novel. It is simply a remarkable film—one that I can unreservedly recommend to anyone. It reminds us of the best parts of our humanity. Some will say that it is sentimental. But for me, it is simply one of the best movies ever made.
The version I have is on videotape. I don't even know if a DVD version is available. Several years ago I rented it from a video store and then I bought a copy from Amazon.com—after seeing it the first time, I had to own it. I can promise that if you find it, I think you too will be completely taken with this very unique movie experience.
—John Woods, June 22, 2007
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Talking Back to Maureen
Maureen Dowd wrote a piece, "Carmela Got Gold Jewelry, Hillary Wants a White House" (June 20, 2007) in which she chastised Democrats, and Hillary in particular, for being power hungry--Maureen's take on her personality. It was a kind of piece that sets in people's minds a negative image of the candidate that too many voters may recall, especially when picked up by the cable talking heads, and cause them to vote against this candidate or that. I could not resist writing to Maureen about this, to wit:
I have to say, Maureen, you’re funny. You’re way plugged into pop culture and making connections with current events in a clever manner. I’m a Democrat. I think there are many interesting choices out there among the Democrats. Right now, I favor John Edwards, but I’m OK with Hillary and Barack as well. In fact, I’m OK with almost any Democrat who wants to get us out the messes that W and his crew have foisted on us over the past 6 1/2 years.
But heaven help any of them you decide to take on. Foibles in your hands are fatal flaws. Al Gore’s sighs, John Edwards’ haircut—all the stuff that’s not really very meaningful becomes grist for your mill. God knows you would have a field day with me if you ever had reason to write about me, which God knows you won’t. I guess what I’m saying is while it’s OK to make fun of public folks and their personality quirks, it’s even better to point out, as you have on occasion, the messes their ideological craziness has gotten or might get us into.
When I listen to the current group of Republican candidates (can you say panderers) and their embrace of creationism and shooting first and talking later, I can only hope that the perceived personality issues of Hillary or any Democrat will not be the basis for deciding on who becomes the next president. That seems to be what happened in 2000, and we will be paying the price for that mistake long after my 2 year old granddaughter is grown up.
—John Woods, June 21, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
