Just a short notice that Father Comes Home From the Wars has 4 shows added this week - Mon - Thurs (Sept. 1). Tickets available here. They may bring this back next season, but there is certainly no guarantee, so this is your last chance to see a moving exploration of how slavery distorted family bonds and other relationships. I probably won't be able to get around to my extended review (which will be spoiler-heavy anyway) until the weekend, but I would recommend this for anyone interested in the African-American experience and how it is portrayed on stage.
I would recommend passing on High Park this year (All's Well That Ends Well and Hamlet), though if interested, it runs another week or so.
I just found out that Tennessee Williams's The Glass Menagerie will be opening this week at the Theatre Centre and running for about two weeks (details here). I expect I'll go, as I haven't seen this in years. Maybe I can combine the show with a trip to the Stephen Bulger Gallery to see the Vivian Maier exhibit, which runs through Sept 10. I've seen several exhibits of her work, and it is definitely worth checking out - and indeed, the unofficial pairing with The Glass Menagerie and its unfulfilled longings seems quite appropriate.
I've already written a bit about Tafelmusik, Tarragon and Soulpepper, which will kind of fill out the main artistic season for me. I'll start getting tickets fairly soon. I'm still debating Hart House where I really want to see Mouawad's Tideline and perhaps 7 Stories by Morris Panych, but I think I'd skip the rest of the season.
Anyway, let me jump to next summer, since both Stratford and Shaw have posted their upcoming seasons! Stratford is here, and Shaw is here. Per usual, Stratford interests me more, and I am just more likely to go out that way, since I hate trying to get to Niagara-on-the-Lake. (I read that the outgoing director didn't like thinking about traffic and how to get out-of-towners to turn up, but it seems like a no brainer to me to try a shuttle bus, since it has been so successful for Stratford.)
At Stratford, I will definitely see Middleton's The Changeling (finally, though I did have the opportunity to see a modern take on it at the Storefront Theatre*) and Sheridan's School for Scandal. I will probably pass on Twelfth Night, just because I've seen it several times and I can't really justify Stratford prices for that. I am sort of torn on Murphy's The Breathing Hole, which sounds sort of interesting, but at the same time might be a real incoherent mess. I guess it depends just how much they are charging for it, and if I can come up with one weekend to see everything. I very much doubt I would travel to Stratford just to see The Breathing Hole. That pretty much covers it. They did Romeo and Juliet just a few years back, so I won't go to that, and I clearly won't go to Tartuffe, since I hate the play so much.
Shaw is less interesting from the get-go. There is a small chance I would see Saint Joan. I don't really care for Friel's Dancing at Lughnasa. I actually saw Eno's Middletown at Steppenwolf several years back and didn't think it was all that great. I certainly wouldn't go a second time. Michael Healey's 1979 is a bit of a wild card. It could be fairly clever, and no question if Video Cabaret was doing it, I would go. But I would rather see it in Toronto (or even Ottawa in April 2017) rather than going down to Shaw, so I am leaning against. That is kind of the way I feel about An Octoroon by Branden Jacobs-Jenkins. I'm pretty sure this is a play that would sort of enrage me (for good and bad reasons very much like The Shipment by Young Jean Lee) and I'd probably go if it gets transferred to Toronto, but I am not going to travel down there and then sort of stew about the play the whole drive home. So I might go to Saint Joan, but even that is fairly questionable. It is interesting that they appear to have cut things back to just one musical (no question that the musicals from the past two seasons were critically panned), but Shaw still isn't really my cup of tea.
* It also means I'll probably pass on Shakespeare Bash'd's staged reading the play (currently slotted in for Nov. 13 at the Imperial Pub). I'd rather go into the Stratford not knowing much about the play (aside from there are lots of bloody betrayals) and let the plot unfold. However, I am fairly likely to try to see Shakespeare Bash'd's full production of Twelfth Night this winter (and possibly take my son) rather than pay Stratford prices for a play I've seen many times. Not saying that I won't ultimately go to Stratford for this, but I generally like smaller, more intimate productions of Shakespeare's comedies.
Monday, August 29, 2016
What am I looking for (fiction edition)?
I've been struggling with my reading choices for a while. Quite a few of them seem to end up as books that I should be reading (or I tell myself that I should be reading) rather than books I enjoy. I think I am getting a bit more out of the non-fiction books, or at least the proportion of books that I feel actually merited my time is higher, and maybe I will just continue along that track. Still, I have piles of unread books in the basement, and I would like to get through most of them by 2020... I guess the one positive is that I am much less likely to hold onto marginal books than I used to be. If I know I am not going to reread it and it isn't a stone-cold classic that the kids might need, then I have been donating the books as I go through them. Six of the last 10 books I read have been donated.
In general, I am also trying to convince myself to give up on books sooner. It is still a bit of a challenge for me, since I would rather read through to the end and then never bother with the book again, especially if the critical consensus is generally positive, than to wonder if I should give the book another go somewhere down the line. However, for Naipaul's The Enigma of Arrival and Philip Roth's Sabbath's Theater, the impressions I had of each book by about the 1/3 mark never changed by the end, and in both cases, I probably would have been better off just stopping midstream and turn to something that I enjoyed more. (I actually do have some thoughts on the Roth book, but I'll blog about that later in the week.)
I have taken that to heart with Taiye Selasi's Ghana Must Go. It was certainly blown up in certain quarters, but in my opinion, it doesn't live up to the hype. I thought pretty seriously about pushing on, but two things happened to change my mind. First, she just started piling one thing after another onto this family (and she kind of over-egged the pudding with how the father lost his job to the point I found it unbelievable). I get really weary of this sort of thing (and I probably should just discard my copy of Mistry's A Fine Balance, since I remember even at the time thinking when will this misery end, though it is a brilliantly-written book...). Second, the folks at Goodreads have hinted that there is sort of a happy ending in sight but only when this non-traditional family bonds back in Africa, which feels both unbelievable given the circumstances and too much like a Lifetime special. Maybe more to the point, I am just so sick of Ivy league MFA-types getting so much hype for these under-baked first novels. (I found the exact same thing with Iman Verjee's In Between Dreams, which I also didn't finish.) One minor advantage of the Toronto Star over the NY Times is that the focus of the book section is on Canadian authors and not these not quite ready for prime time Ivy league authors.
Anyway, it is probably not possible to completely distill what I am looking for in a novel or novella, but I am starting to come up with some main themes. I want interesting characters, not ciphers. I am willing to make some exceptions for very short stories or extremely clever postmodern fiction. In particular, I want characters who are at least of average intelligence rather than silly moppets who make bad choices purely out of ignorance. I prefer characters who have some common sense, though they can certainly be led astray (by their emotions typically) or can be placed in very unusual situations (Malamud's God's Grace or the Scorsese movie After Hours). There are some rare cases where strong secondary characters can make up for dull or insipid or silly or simply unbelievable main characters. The secondary characters are the only reason I have hung onto Bowen's The Death of the Heart and Taylor's A Game of Hide and Seek.
Most of all, I am one of those boring throwback readers who still wants plot. Bad things can happen to the characters, but just piling on one thing after another is alienating and eventually boring. Maybe the single most important criterion is whether the characters have internal integrity. If we think we know a character, then they can't all of a sudden act in a completely contrary manner, just to serve the plot. That doesn't mean that they can't have hidden depths, but if they have these multiple layers, then they have to be earned, rather than just sprung on the reader. It doesn't really seem that much to ask, does it? But quite a few books I've read have not really passed this test, or I just wasn't interested for some other reason. Perhaps I'll come back around to this at a later date.
In general, I am also trying to convince myself to give up on books sooner. It is still a bit of a challenge for me, since I would rather read through to the end and then never bother with the book again, especially if the critical consensus is generally positive, than to wonder if I should give the book another go somewhere down the line. However, for Naipaul's The Enigma of Arrival and Philip Roth's Sabbath's Theater, the impressions I had of each book by about the 1/3 mark never changed by the end, and in both cases, I probably would have been better off just stopping midstream and turn to something that I enjoyed more. (I actually do have some thoughts on the Roth book, but I'll blog about that later in the week.)
I have taken that to heart with Taiye Selasi's Ghana Must Go. It was certainly blown up in certain quarters, but in my opinion, it doesn't live up to the hype. I thought pretty seriously about pushing on, but two things happened to change my mind. First, she just started piling one thing after another onto this family (and she kind of over-egged the pudding with how the father lost his job to the point I found it unbelievable). I get really weary of this sort of thing (and I probably should just discard my copy of Mistry's A Fine Balance, since I remember even at the time thinking when will this misery end, though it is a brilliantly-written book...). Second, the folks at Goodreads have hinted that there is sort of a happy ending in sight but only when this non-traditional family bonds back in Africa, which feels both unbelievable given the circumstances and too much like a Lifetime special. Maybe more to the point, I am just so sick of Ivy league MFA-types getting so much hype for these under-baked first novels. (I found the exact same thing with Iman Verjee's In Between Dreams, which I also didn't finish.) One minor advantage of the Toronto Star over the NY Times is that the focus of the book section is on Canadian authors and not these not quite ready for prime time Ivy league authors.
Anyway, it is probably not possible to completely distill what I am looking for in a novel or novella, but I am starting to come up with some main themes. I want interesting characters, not ciphers. I am willing to make some exceptions for very short stories or extremely clever postmodern fiction. In particular, I want characters who are at least of average intelligence rather than silly moppets who make bad choices purely out of ignorance. I prefer characters who have some common sense, though they can certainly be led astray (by their emotions typically) or can be placed in very unusual situations (Malamud's God's Grace or the Scorsese movie After Hours). There are some rare cases where strong secondary characters can make up for dull or insipid or silly or simply unbelievable main characters. The secondary characters are the only reason I have hung onto Bowen's The Death of the Heart and Taylor's A Game of Hide and Seek.
Most of all, I am one of those boring throwback readers who still wants plot. Bad things can happen to the characters, but just piling on one thing after another is alienating and eventually boring. Maybe the single most important criterion is whether the characters have internal integrity. If we think we know a character, then they can't all of a sudden act in a completely contrary manner, just to serve the plot. That doesn't mean that they can't have hidden depths, but if they have these multiple layers, then they have to be earned, rather than just sprung on the reader. It doesn't really seem that much to ask, does it? But quite a few books I've read have not really passed this test, or I just wasn't interested for some other reason. Perhaps I'll come back around to this at a later date.
Sunday, August 28, 2016
Chicago theatre previews - Sept. 2016
On my recent whirlwind trip to Chicago, I managed to catch two plays that were in final previews. Both should be opening this weekend and running for 3 or so weeks. I enjoyed both, though they were quite different plays.
The first one I caught was Sister Cities by Colette Freedman. It will run through Sept. 18. It was a hit at the Edinburgh Fringe, but this is its Chicago premiere. Some details here. Apparently, it has also been filmed for the Lifetime channel, though it seems like some of the dialog was cut and it is a more visual piece. The play is set entirely in the living room, whereas in the movie version, most of the rooms of the house are explored.
The set-up is that the four sisters (all with different fathers and named for the place of their birth) rush home to deal with the sudden death of their mother, who was clearly a bit of a free spirit. I'd rather not reveal too much of the plot, but it isn't going to be too much of a surprise to find out that various family secrets get aired now that the four sisters are reunited. The play moves along at a rapid clip, clocking in just under 90 minutes. As I said, I did enjoy it, but it is worth knowing that it seems to draw a bit on TV tropes in the way that humor is frequently used to mask emotion (there is more witty repartee than one would expect given the circumstances), there are a few sudden reversals that are a bit too convenient and the ending is implausible to say the least.
However, I was pretty excited to find out that at the preview I attended, Freedman was in the audience and actually engaged in a talk back with the audience, and it was one of the more enlightening ones I've seen in a very long while. She mentioned that writing for a specific group of actors can deepen parts (and even speed up the writing process a bit, since you are drawing on an actual person), though that can make it somewhat difficult when the role then goes to someone else in a remount. She wrote the part of Austin for herself and she considers it the juiciest role, though I tended to relate the most to Carolina, the type A personality. I asked about Dallas, who strives to be the perfect wife, but seems to be the only one who really had ambivalent feelings about their mother. Freedman said that that was intentional -- she is the only one who really saw through to the selfishness of the mother (who always put her own needs first ahead of her children, though she wasn't a total monster). In some ways, I think this could have been a deeper, more profound play, but it's certainly entertaining.
The other preview was a more esoteric play -- Fefu and Her Friends by María Irene Fornés. This is rarely performed, and people interested in seeing a fine production of the play should make tracks to see Halcyon's production (running through Oct. 8 - details and tickets here). It is really hard to summarize the play, particularly as there are 8 cast members and the audience gets a chance to listen in on different discussions they are having throughout the play. (This piece talks in general terms about the play.) In the second half of the first act, the audience actually gets split into 4 groups and goes to 4 different settings (the kitchen, the lawn, etc.) to see smaller groupings of the actors. It's actually a bit clever how the conversations can be overheard from different settings, which is likely how things would play out in a real house. Rest assured, the audience will eventually see all 4 scenes, so no essential information is withheld. It's really too difficult to describe what happens in the play, but Fefu is a bit of a free spirit who has a certain magnetism. She converts one new acquaintance from being appalled to being inspired by her philosophy of life. But perhaps all is not well in this idyllic setting? You'll have to watch to find out more.
The first one I caught was Sister Cities by Colette Freedman. It will run through Sept. 18. It was a hit at the Edinburgh Fringe, but this is its Chicago premiere. Some details here. Apparently, it has also been filmed for the Lifetime channel, though it seems like some of the dialog was cut and it is a more visual piece. The play is set entirely in the living room, whereas in the movie version, most of the rooms of the house are explored.
The set-up is that the four sisters (all with different fathers and named for the place of their birth) rush home to deal with the sudden death of their mother, who was clearly a bit of a free spirit. I'd rather not reveal too much of the plot, but it isn't going to be too much of a surprise to find out that various family secrets get aired now that the four sisters are reunited. The play moves along at a rapid clip, clocking in just under 90 minutes. As I said, I did enjoy it, but it is worth knowing that it seems to draw a bit on TV tropes in the way that humor is frequently used to mask emotion (there is more witty repartee than one would expect given the circumstances), there are a few sudden reversals that are a bit too convenient and the ending is implausible to say the least.
However, I was pretty excited to find out that at the preview I attended, Freedman was in the audience and actually engaged in a talk back with the audience, and it was one of the more enlightening ones I've seen in a very long while. She mentioned that writing for a specific group of actors can deepen parts (and even speed up the writing process a bit, since you are drawing on an actual person), though that can make it somewhat difficult when the role then goes to someone else in a remount. She wrote the part of Austin for herself and she considers it the juiciest role, though I tended to relate the most to Carolina, the type A personality. I asked about Dallas, who strives to be the perfect wife, but seems to be the only one who really had ambivalent feelings about their mother. Freedman said that that was intentional -- she is the only one who really saw through to the selfishness of the mother (who always put her own needs first ahead of her children, though she wasn't a total monster). In some ways, I think this could have been a deeper, more profound play, but it's certainly entertaining.
The other preview was a more esoteric play -- Fefu and Her Friends by María Irene Fornés. This is rarely performed, and people interested in seeing a fine production of the play should make tracks to see Halcyon's production (running through Oct. 8 - details and tickets here). It is really hard to summarize the play, particularly as there are 8 cast members and the audience gets a chance to listen in on different discussions they are having throughout the play. (This piece talks in general terms about the play.) In the second half of the first act, the audience actually gets split into 4 groups and goes to 4 different settings (the kitchen, the lawn, etc.) to see smaller groupings of the actors. It's actually a bit clever how the conversations can be overheard from different settings, which is likely how things would play out in a real house. Rest assured, the audience will eventually see all 4 scenes, so no essential information is withheld. It's really too difficult to describe what happens in the play, but Fefu is a bit of a free spirit who has a certain magnetism. She converts one new acquaintance from being appalled to being inspired by her philosophy of life. But perhaps all is not well in this idyllic setting? You'll have to watch to find out more.
Saturday, August 27, 2016
High Park - All's Well That Ends Well
I'm back from All's Well That Ends Well in High Park. I guess my main feeling was they did an ok job of it, but overall they were trying to hard to be hip. I definitely do not agree with the 4 star reviews that some people gave. I tend to be a bit of a traditionalist, and I thought they did a bit too much genre bending. Some of the choices were baffling. Personally, I didn't see nearly as much homosexual bashing in the way that Parolles was "tortured," as several other reviewers did, though what did stand out (and was really an unnecessary and unpleasant twist) was to thrust a gay porno magazine at him (as revealing his true character?) and then when he accepts his role as a fool (rather than as a soldier full of braggadocio) he is given a dress to wear. Pretty uncool if you ask me.
Unfortunately, we were not able to reserve seats for the evening, and got there just a bit late. We ended up on the hill on the far left of the stage. The sight lines were ok, though some of the blocking that was done made it hard to see what was going on when the entire ensemble was on stage. I could hear reasonably well, though my companion felt she missed a lot of the dialogue, so she didn't enjoy the production at all. My problem was the hill had an incredible slant to it, so I spent a lot of time sliding down the hill and pushing myself back up on the blanket. My hip is still a bit sore, and I have a lot of dirt ground into my new shoes.
I knew I would be bothered by the 3 little speeches written by the director to move things along, and I certainly was, especially as they got an unbelievable amount of attention. The clownish character, Lavatch, is a female in this production (and while she keeps talking about how she wants to be rewarded for her service to the Countess by being married off, this must have been one of the subplots that was completely cut). She ends up speaking the new lines (by the director Ted Witzel) as a kind of torch song, just giving them so much undue prominence.
But this is a hard play to like. It relies too much on the bed trick (though maybe it isn't quite as contrived as in Measure for Measure (another problematic play) as Helena (or Helen in this production) at least is officially married to her unwitting partner). It features a smart woman falling hopelessly in love with an unworthy man, is abandoned by him, and tricks him into returning to her side. In this production, Bertram is completely unmoved when he hears of her death (at least in some productions one sees a bit of remorse creep in at this point) and yet seems to have genuine emotions for her once all the machinations are revealed. I didn't feel this was earned at all (by the production), and I didn't believe it for a second. The only thing I could plausibly believe is that Bertram remembered how good she was in the sack back in Florence. I would have had more respect for this production if it had been more honest about the problematic ending instead of trying to make it an upbeat ending. In fact, I much preferred the Much Ado About Nothing production that added some ambiguity and melancholy to what is generally not seen as a problem play to this one trying to somehow smooth out the ending and pretend that Bertram is going to grow into a worthy partner for Helen and thus they live happily ever after.
There were two moments that I did enjoy, both of them having more to do with movement and staging than acting! First, to set the scene for the Florence exploits, the men in their soldiers' garb, push these two large structures towards the middle of the stage, forcing all these chairs ahead of them like a snowplow pushes snow. The chairs end up piled up a bit like the blockade that is a highlight of Les Mis. They also come to a halt just a few feet away from Helen, who is discussing her plans to follow Bertram to Florence, adding just a hint of danger to the proceedings.
Then at the end, when Julia is slowly (far too slowly for my taste) revealing the traps that Helen has laid for Bertram, she and Bertram are circling the front of the stage, and the rest of the ensemble moves in block formation, following their discussion. All of a sudden, the block opens up and Helen is there, back in her wedding dress, to confront Bertram. That was fairly impressive.
Do two very elevated moments and a few sparks of interest here and there justify this production? Probably not. However, I will say it is hard to get anyone to pay any attention to this play (or Measure for Measure). Still, I will be very wary of Witzel in the future, since I think he takes too many liberties with Shakespeare. I can tell from this production and the reviews, that I would have absolutely hated his take on Hamlet, and I am definitely skipping it. So if you are on the fence, I would probably advise skipping Shakespeare in High Park this year. I'm hoping that they come back a bit stronger next year, just as last year was fairly solid.
(I'm still sort of on the fence about the gender bending that happens in Romeo and Juliet over in Withrow Park (reviews here and here), but I'm leaning against going. I was going to take my son to see one of Shakespeare's best-known tragedies, but I just don't want his first experience to be one that is so non-traditional and frankly a bit confused and confusing (and Slotkin confirms this). It would require more explanation than I really feel like going into at this point. Will I go by myself, perhaps on the night they roast marshmallows? Not likely, but perhaps if I feel I have caught up with everything else in my life...)
Unfortunately, we were not able to reserve seats for the evening, and got there just a bit late. We ended up on the hill on the far left of the stage. The sight lines were ok, though some of the blocking that was done made it hard to see what was going on when the entire ensemble was on stage. I could hear reasonably well, though my companion felt she missed a lot of the dialogue, so she didn't enjoy the production at all. My problem was the hill had an incredible slant to it, so I spent a lot of time sliding down the hill and pushing myself back up on the blanket. My hip is still a bit sore, and I have a lot of dirt ground into my new shoes.
I knew I would be bothered by the 3 little speeches written by the director to move things along, and I certainly was, especially as they got an unbelievable amount of attention. The clownish character, Lavatch, is a female in this production (and while she keeps talking about how she wants to be rewarded for her service to the Countess by being married off, this must have been one of the subplots that was completely cut). She ends up speaking the new lines (by the director Ted Witzel) as a kind of torch song, just giving them so much undue prominence.
But this is a hard play to like. It relies too much on the bed trick (though maybe it isn't quite as contrived as in Measure for Measure (another problematic play) as Helena (or Helen in this production) at least is officially married to her unwitting partner). It features a smart woman falling hopelessly in love with an unworthy man, is abandoned by him, and tricks him into returning to her side. In this production, Bertram is completely unmoved when he hears of her death (at least in some productions one sees a bit of remorse creep in at this point) and yet seems to have genuine emotions for her once all the machinations are revealed. I didn't feel this was earned at all (by the production), and I didn't believe it for a second. The only thing I could plausibly believe is that Bertram remembered how good she was in the sack back in Florence. I would have had more respect for this production if it had been more honest about the problematic ending instead of trying to make it an upbeat ending. In fact, I much preferred the Much Ado About Nothing production that added some ambiguity and melancholy to what is generally not seen as a problem play to this one trying to somehow smooth out the ending and pretend that Bertram is going to grow into a worthy partner for Helen and thus they live happily ever after.
There were two moments that I did enjoy, both of them having more to do with movement and staging than acting! First, to set the scene for the Florence exploits, the men in their soldiers' garb, push these two large structures towards the middle of the stage, forcing all these chairs ahead of them like a snowplow pushes snow. The chairs end up piled up a bit like the blockade that is a highlight of Les Mis. They also come to a halt just a few feet away from Helen, who is discussing her plans to follow Bertram to Florence, adding just a hint of danger to the proceedings.
Then at the end, when Julia is slowly (far too slowly for my taste) revealing the traps that Helen has laid for Bertram, she and Bertram are circling the front of the stage, and the rest of the ensemble moves in block formation, following their discussion. All of a sudden, the block opens up and Helen is there, back in her wedding dress, to confront Bertram. That was fairly impressive.
Do two very elevated moments and a few sparks of interest here and there justify this production? Probably not. However, I will say it is hard to get anyone to pay any attention to this play (or Measure for Measure). Still, I will be very wary of Witzel in the future, since I think he takes too many liberties with Shakespeare. I can tell from this production and the reviews, that I would have absolutely hated his take on Hamlet, and I am definitely skipping it. So if you are on the fence, I would probably advise skipping Shakespeare in High Park this year. I'm hoping that they come back a bit stronger next year, just as last year was fairly solid.
(I'm still sort of on the fence about the gender bending that happens in Romeo and Juliet over in Withrow Park (reviews here and here), but I'm leaning against going. I was going to take my son to see one of Shakespeare's best-known tragedies, but I just don't want his first experience to be one that is so non-traditional and frankly a bit confused and confusing (and Slotkin confirms this). It would require more explanation than I really feel like going into at this point. Will I go by myself, perhaps on the night they roast marshmallows? Not likely, but perhaps if I feel I have caught up with everything else in my life...)
Thursday, August 18, 2016
Father Comes Back from the War (Soulpepper)
Tues. evening I saw Suzan-Lori Parks’s Father Comes Home from the Wars,at Soulpepper. It was very good, though I had a few issues, particularly with the third part. I would still recommend people to go. Since it is only running through August 27, there are only a few more dates to catch it, though it might get extended or come back next year. I will just link to some reviews now, and then over the weekend or next week I will write a more detailed analysis of the trilogy:
Tuesday, August 16, 2016
10th Canadian Challenge - 3rd Review - Whale Music
I've managed to read Paul Quarrington's Whale Music in only two days. It's a short novel (just over 200 pages) and a fairly compelling one. I will say that for a novel by a Canadian author (winner of the Governor General's Award no less) it has only a very tenuous connection with Canada in the form of a young groupie from Toronto who becomes a bit of a muse to the narrator, Desmond Howell, but otherwise this is a story about American-style rock and roll and particularly its excesses.
The book starts off well with this bloated, former rock god finding the groupie, Claire, in his house. He has a fairly tenuous grip on reality due to the epic amount of drugs and booze that he has consumed over his career, with the intake increasing to dangerous proportions after his brother Danny died in an auto accident. (The running joke is that while Des is a hermit living in a L.A. compound, all these people keep turning up at his door and getting inside the house. It must be said, however, that Quarrington does have a shaky grasp of L.A. geography, since he claims that Des lives across from Henry Mancini, and it is only a short walk to some scuzzy neighbourhood, whereas Mancini lived in Bel-Air, which is part of Beverly Hills, which is quite isolated from the rougher parts of L.A. Even more importantly, Bel-Air doesn't overlook the ocean, so perhaps he really meant a neighbourhood more like Pacific Palisades.) While the narrator has a slightly more frazzled and sometimes bewildered tone, the narrator does remind me a fair bit of Ignatius J. Reilly from A Conspiracy of Dunces at the start of this novel. The main difference is rather than railing against the modern world, Desmond has decided to retreat from it and spends his time working on an experimental record called Whale Music.
I have to admit, I would have preferred if Quarrington had left it all set in the present, since it was already a strange enough story. However, the novel takes many flashbacks to go into the back story of the Howl Brothers (Dan and Des Howell and the rest of the band). It wasn't enough that the Howl Brothers had a story a lot like the Beach Boys, Quarrington has generated a parallel universe where the Howl Brothers have replaced the Beach Boys, so it is the Howl Brothers and the Beatles that are duking it out for top position on the charts (and even both going to India at the same time and dropping acid at about the same time, etc.), although the Howl Brothers seemed a bit more open to collaborating with Sun Studio artists than the real world Beach Boys did. I think this alternative history got to be a bit much for me on two occasions. First, when the Beatles and the Howl Brothers get into an actual brawl over who gets the larger dressing room during a concert where they shared the bill. (This might have been vaguely believable in their Berlin days but not by 1964-65 when they were extremely polished.) Second, by naming one of Des's albums Grin, it is just a bit too close to Smile (the fabled album that sort of broke up the Beach Boys when Brian Wilson sort of went off the deep edge). How was Quarrington to know (in 1989) that Brian Wilson would finally emerge from seclusion and record a new version of Smile (released in 2004). Anyway, I guess my feeling is that if Quarrington wanted to write about Brian Wilson, he should have had the guts to do so, rather than create a fictional boy band that operates in exactly the same space as the Beach Boys did. Also, I thought he want to an awful lot of trouble for a bad pun when he revealed that Des's ex-wife still called herself Fay Ginzburg-Howl (not even Ginzburg-Howell).
I could have done with a lot less tripping down memory lane and more watching Desmond slowly reconnecting with the world and all his crazy family members, former band mates and other hangers on. Certainly, the most memorable sections of the book are when Quarrington tries to describe the creative process and we see Des struggling to create a new kind of music, music aimed more at whales than at the dance charts. I'll leave it up to the reader to decide if Des ultimately succeeds on his own terms and whether he will remain out of his shell more or less permanently or retreat. The real world Brian Wilson seems to have survived and is fully functioning these days, so it is not out of the question for the surviving Howl Brother to do the same.
The book starts off well with this bloated, former rock god finding the groupie, Claire, in his house. He has a fairly tenuous grip on reality due to the epic amount of drugs and booze that he has consumed over his career, with the intake increasing to dangerous proportions after his brother Danny died in an auto accident. (The running joke is that while Des is a hermit living in a L.A. compound, all these people keep turning up at his door and getting inside the house. It must be said, however, that Quarrington does have a shaky grasp of L.A. geography, since he claims that Des lives across from Henry Mancini, and it is only a short walk to some scuzzy neighbourhood, whereas Mancini lived in Bel-Air, which is part of Beverly Hills, which is quite isolated from the rougher parts of L.A. Even more importantly, Bel-Air doesn't overlook the ocean, so perhaps he really meant a neighbourhood more like Pacific Palisades.) While the narrator has a slightly more frazzled and sometimes bewildered tone, the narrator does remind me a fair bit of Ignatius J. Reilly from A Conspiracy of Dunces at the start of this novel. The main difference is rather than railing against the modern world, Desmond has decided to retreat from it and spends his time working on an experimental record called Whale Music.
I have to admit, I would have preferred if Quarrington had left it all set in the present, since it was already a strange enough story. However, the novel takes many flashbacks to go into the back story of the Howl Brothers (Dan and Des Howell and the rest of the band). It wasn't enough that the Howl Brothers had a story a lot like the Beach Boys, Quarrington has generated a parallel universe where the Howl Brothers have replaced the Beach Boys, so it is the Howl Brothers and the Beatles that are duking it out for top position on the charts (and even both going to India at the same time and dropping acid at about the same time, etc.), although the Howl Brothers seemed a bit more open to collaborating with Sun Studio artists than the real world Beach Boys did. I think this alternative history got to be a bit much for me on two occasions. First, when the Beatles and the Howl Brothers get into an actual brawl over who gets the larger dressing room during a concert where they shared the bill. (This might have been vaguely believable in their Berlin days but not by 1964-65 when they were extremely polished.) Second, by naming one of Des's albums Grin, it is just a bit too close to Smile (the fabled album that sort of broke up the Beach Boys when Brian Wilson sort of went off the deep edge). How was Quarrington to know (in 1989) that Brian Wilson would finally emerge from seclusion and record a new version of Smile (released in 2004). Anyway, I guess my feeling is that if Quarrington wanted to write about Brian Wilson, he should have had the guts to do so, rather than create a fictional boy band that operates in exactly the same space as the Beach Boys did. Also, I thought he want to an awful lot of trouble for a bad pun when he revealed that Des's ex-wife still called herself Fay Ginzburg-Howl (not even Ginzburg-Howell).
I could have done with a lot less tripping down memory lane and more watching Desmond slowly reconnecting with the world and all his crazy family members, former band mates and other hangers on. Certainly, the most memorable sections of the book are when Quarrington tries to describe the creative process and we see Des struggling to create a new kind of music, music aimed more at whales than at the dance charts. I'll leave it up to the reader to decide if Des ultimately succeeds on his own terms and whether he will remain out of his shell more or less permanently or retreat. The real world Brian Wilson seems to have survived and is fully functioning these days, so it is not out of the question for the surviving Howl Brother to do the same.
Monday, August 15, 2016
Hip Memories
While not really of any interest to anyone aside from me, I want to gather up my thoughts on The Tragically Hip. I had heard of them by 1992 or so, though mostly as a band with an odd name. I don't think they got any radio play in the States.
I was in Toronto from 1993-94 and I heard them from time to time on the radio. (I mostly listened to CFNY 102.1 The Edge, and while this was more of a pure alternative station at that time, they must have played The Hip once in a while.) Anyway, I must have picked up Fully Completely then (I have a CD manufactured in Canada), along with Gordon by the Barenaked Ladies.
I was visiting a friend in Chicago in spring of 1995, and I happened to see in the paper that The Tragically Hip was playing Metro. I couldn't convince him to go, and he missed out on a great show (April 1, 1995). I just looked over the set list, and it was pretty incredible (part of the Day for Night tour). Incidentally, I have heard them do So Hard Done By live after all. I really only knew the Fully Completely material, but the other songs were certainly strong. Gordon was wearing a white cowboy hat and danced around but wasn't completely eccentric at this point. This was back when they still were thinking they might crack the U.S. market, and in fact the show was the week after the famed (or infamous) SNL broadcast...
While I occasionally picked up Tragically Hip albums from time to time, the one that I play the most often remains Fully Completely, though last year I started running through Yer Favourites on a routine basis, so that I have gotten to know most of the bigger hits off the other albums.
Anyway, I saw them play a mini-set at Yonge-Dundas Square, leaving after they finished Fifty Mission Cap, and then I saw the Fully and Completely tour last year. And then of course, last night I saw what is probably their last show in Toronto (hopefully not, of course). It's fair to say that while I like the band quite a bit, I wasn't truly shaped by them growing up. I don't have those memories of blasting the Hip while camping out in the woods, though I have been known to play Fully Completely on road trips. That's ok. We all come to music we like on different paths, and there really is no single way to appreciate music.
I actually just stumbled across this story about a man who has build a website that explores all the lyrics of all the songs from The Tragically Hip. I don't have time to explore now, but it is something I will check out later. He also says something to the effect that we all approach this band and the music and the weirdness that is Gord Downie in different ways and that is ok. It is a Canadian band worth celebrating, even if no one in the U.S. really cares (obviously a slight exaggeration).
I was in Toronto from 1993-94 and I heard them from time to time on the radio. (I mostly listened to CFNY 102.1 The Edge, and while this was more of a pure alternative station at that time, they must have played The Hip once in a while.) Anyway, I must have picked up Fully Completely then (I have a CD manufactured in Canada), along with Gordon by the Barenaked Ladies.
I was visiting a friend in Chicago in spring of 1995, and I happened to see in the paper that The Tragically Hip was playing Metro. I couldn't convince him to go, and he missed out on a great show (April 1, 1995). I just looked over the set list, and it was pretty incredible (part of the Day for Night tour). Incidentally, I have heard them do So Hard Done By live after all. I really only knew the Fully Completely material, but the other songs were certainly strong. Gordon was wearing a white cowboy hat and danced around but wasn't completely eccentric at this point. This was back when they still were thinking they might crack the U.S. market, and in fact the show was the week after the famed (or infamous) SNL broadcast...
While I occasionally picked up Tragically Hip albums from time to time, the one that I play the most often remains Fully Completely, though last year I started running through Yer Favourites on a routine basis, so that I have gotten to know most of the bigger hits off the other albums.
Anyway, I saw them play a mini-set at Yonge-Dundas Square, leaving after they finished Fifty Mission Cap, and then I saw the Fully and Completely tour last year. And then of course, last night I saw what is probably their last show in Toronto (hopefully not, of course). It's fair to say that while I like the band quite a bit, I wasn't truly shaped by them growing up. I don't have those memories of blasting the Hip while camping out in the woods, though I have been known to play Fully Completely on road trips. That's ok. We all come to music we like on different paths, and there really is no single way to appreciate music.
I actually just stumbled across this story about a man who has build a website that explores all the lyrics of all the songs from The Tragically Hip. I don't have time to explore now, but it is something I will check out later. He also says something to the effect that we all approach this band and the music and the weirdness that is Gord Downie in different ways and that is ok. It is a Canadian band worth celebrating, even if no one in the U.S. really cares (obviously a slight exaggeration).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)