I think it's fair to say I don't do much in my life. I'm currently reading 'Yes Man' by Danny Wallace, about how he chose to start saying 'yes' to the opportunities life can give, after realising that he basically hadn't gone out anywhere for most of a year; and, while I'm nowhere near that bad (who is, apart from Danny?), 'going out' and 'doing things' definitely isn't the general pattern of my life. Though, saying that I did go to a leaving party last week for a friend who's going to Mozambique for a few months. And tomorrow I'm going to watch another friend poison himself with very hot chillis he's grown himself (habaneros-350,000 Scovilles, apparently). And Sunday looks to be pretty busy also. So, you know, I do 'go out', but overall that probably wouldn't be enough to keep writing about on it's own; so, I thought I'd come up with something else to say now and again.
So, here is the first in an occasional series, which I'll put up whenever I haven't done anything worth remembering, and can think of something to say. Which might not be that often. We'll see. As I said in the last post, one thing I do do is read. A lot. For anyone who may be interested in knowing exactly how much, you may be able to see the current total here. I hope so, anyway. And from reading this much, I've come to see that a lot of books say very similar things. A very smart chap a long time ago said that 'there is nothing new under the sun', which seems reasonable, so, you know, hardly surprising that there are patterns. So, unlike learning from cats or TV shows, I've learned some stuff (maybe not a lot, definitely not everything) from books. Or, at least from reading.
So, in this sort of introduction (that's why 0.5), I'll unleash my first conclusion. Are you ready? Here goes, then-what people say about things, and what they actually are may not be the same. Seems pretty obvious, and it probably is; but it's amazing how often people seem to forget this in everyday life. Or at least I do. Almost certainly because it's easier-and definitely quicker. In the same way that people really know that most films that come from books are not accurate, but talk as though when they've seen the film, they know the book. Or that a cover version just may not be the same as the original (ya think!?). It seems that most people think/behave in a way that they form their opinions from a cloud of half formed bits of ideas. I know I often do something along those lines, but I aim (hope?) to keep challenging myself on this.
Anyway, I will unfold this a bit with a couple of examples. First, how 'Dracula' annoys me-not the book, but the films; or rather, the way no-one seems to know the book. As I said before, most films which come from books are not accurate, and this is particularly so with this one. As I seem to be one of the few people in the world who read the book before seeing any films based on it (I think I was 13), I find it difficult to watch any of the films which claim to be based on the book-'Dracula A.D.1972', however is definitely worth watching. Most of these films are incredibly inaccurate (ironically, apparently 'Dracula-Dead And Loving It' by Mel Brooks is pretty accurate), the 'best' (worst?) of these, certainly the best known, is the awful 'Francis Ford Coppela's, sorry, my mistake, Bram Stoker's Dracula', where about all he got right was the characters names. And that Dracula was a vampire. I suppose we can give him that, at least. So, the point is never read a book before seeing any films based on it? Or films about Dracula only work if they don't try to be anything like Dracula? I guess either of those could be a point, but to get back to what I was saying earlier, the point is that the films (what people 'say') and the book (what it actually is) may not be (alright, definitely aren't) the same. At all.
That was me being ever-so-slightly cynical. Or possibly just annoyed. So, on a more positive note, here's what I have to say about 'Pride and Prejudice', which I finally got around to reading sometime last year. And then read most of the rest of what Austen wrote, cos, you know, I actually quite enjoyed it. I like most of her books, with the exception of 'Mansfield Park', which for some reason I've never been able to finish. I don't think 'P&P' is the best, my favourite is 'Persuasion', basically because pretty much nothing happens. Sounds a bit strange, but it works-probably why there's not many films based on it, though. Anyway, I used to have this sneaking suspicion that classic literature was in general quite boring; until I decided to actually read a fair bit of it. And found that there's a lot of good stuff out there. What I didn't realise about Austen, cos I've never heard anyone say it, but she was very, very funny. She had a very dry wit, which is particularly clear in her short stories. My favourite is about a man who gets married, and then decides to go travelling-without his wife-comes back a while later, flirts with a woman in a coach, and then discovers that's his wife, and they live very happily ever after. Unfortunately, I've now ruined that one for you, as the actual story isn't much longer. And the other thing I discovered is that 'P&P' is not a love story, primarily-I don't think Austen ever intended to write love stories. I think what she wrote (and what she intended to write) was sort of satires (gently) poking fun of the society that she lived in/around. The reason why there's so much bout marriage in what she wrote is simply because that's what life was all about for most people of her social status-she didn't really have anything else to write about. But don't just take my word for it, read her books (especially the short stories), and see for yourself.
And that's the point, as much as this has a point. Things may not be as they seem, appearances can be deceptive; so, why not actually check things out for yourself. Remembering, in the words of G. K. Chesterton, "the point of having an open mind, like an open mouth, is to close it on something solid".
No comments:
Post a Comment