Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: A of I - Initial Observations

Expand Messages
  • ytaddavis
    ... modernlibrary100greatestbooks@yahoogroups.com, winstonsmith_99 ... should ... Of course. I only added the quotes since I found it quite charming, as I do
    Message 1 of 10 , Jun 1, 2003
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In
      modernlibrary100greatestbooks@yahoogroups.com, "winstonsmith_99"
      <winstonsmith_99@y...> wrote:
      > Tad, Regarding my references to "Sister Edith," I beg your
      > indulgence; it's a Southern thing. Actually, out of respect, I
      should
      > be calling her "Miss Edith," and I henceforth shall do so.

      Of course. I only added the quotes since I found it quite charming,
      as I do many Southern expressions. (Originally from Texas,
      where "Southern" is not quite as charming as the real South, though
      it aspires to be. But now in New York/New Jersey, where we're in far
      too much of a hurry to know from charming.)

      How was the dvd?

      thanks, tad
    • winstonsmith_99
      Tad, I haven t yet had time to visit Blockbuster. I will do so as soon as log off, and I ll post some thoughts tonight after I ve had time to recover from
      Message 2 of 10 , Jun 2, 2003
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Tad, I haven't yet had time to visit Blockbuster. I will do so as soon
        as log off, and I'll post some thoughts tonight after I've had time to
        recover from feasting my eyes upon Miss Michelle in elegant early-20th
        century finery (*sigh*).
        I've gotten through chapter six, and I'm convinced that my initial
        observations will be proven correct. I couldn't help but notice how
        many times the word "proper" is used. Being a good Southerner, I fully
        appreciate the role and the necessity of manners and protocol. But, I
        think we have here a lesson in what happens when formality becomes an
        end unto itself; respectable self-restraint becomes self-perpetuating
        bondage, stifling and de-humanizing. Without the time and the
        resources of character to do anything other than constantly
        second-guess the effects of appearances, these poor people have been
        forced to practically abandon their humanity. They are prisoners of
        the perfunctory, and they do not even dare to ask, "Why do we do
        this?" This is almost as nightmarish as the dystopic society of
        Orwell's *1984*. Truly tragic.

        Winston

        --- In modernlibrary100greatestbooks@yahoogroups.com, ytaddavis
        <no_reply@y...> wrote:
        > --- In
        > modernlibrary100greatestbooks@yahoogroups.com, "winstonsmith_99"
        > <winstonsmith_99@y...> wrote:
        > > Tad, Regarding my references to "Sister Edith," I beg your
        > > indulgence; it's a Southern thing. Actually, out of respect, I
        > should
        > > be calling her "Miss Edith," and I henceforth shall do so.
        >
        > Of course. I only added the quotes since I found it quite charming,
        > as I do many Southern expressions. (Originally from Texas,
        > where "Southern" is not quite as charming as the real South, though
        > it aspires to be. But now in New York/New Jersey, where we're in far
        > too much of a hurry to know from charming.)
        >
        > How was the dvd?
        >
        > thanks, tad
      • jason3778
        ... foresee a ... If you haven t seen the film yet, wait until you are finished with the book. I ve seen the film a couple of times and the darn faces of
        Message 3 of 10 , Jun 3, 2003
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          >
          > VERY prettily said, and I'm intrigued about Miss Pfeiffer. I
          foresee a
          > DVD in my future tonight!
          >
          > Winston
          >

          If you haven't seen the film yet, wait until you are finished with
          the book. I've seen the film a couple of times and the darn faces of
          Michelle Pfeiffer, Daniel Day-Lewis and Winona Ryder are immovable.
          I finally just gave in and pictured them since I had no way of
          creating new faces in my head. But I am realizing why Scorsese
          decided to make this film. I always thought it odd for him, but New
          York is always his subject and this is a wonderful New York-story to
          go with his other fascinating New York societies/subcultures like
          Taxi Driver and Good Fellas. But in looking at the Internet Movie
          Database I found that this book has been put to film no less than
          five or six different times, once in Russian and one version as far
          back as 1924 which would have made the story more or less modern day
          instead of the period piece that it's forced to be now.

          jason
        • ytaddavis
          Since most of the conflict is in the subtext and what is not said, it seems like making a movie would be quite challenging. I m surprised it s been done so
          Message 4 of 10 , Jun 4, 2003
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            Since most of the conflict is in the subtext and what is not said, it
            seems like making a movie would be quite challenging. I'm surprised
            it's been done so often.

            I'm toward the end now and I must say, it's quite engrossing to watch
            our young "hero" twisting in the wind.

            thanks, tad

            PS. I just got "Parade's End" and it's one of the longest we've read.
            Better get cracking.

            --- In modernlibrary100greatestbooks@yahoogroups.com, "jason3778"
            <jason3778@y...> wrote:
            > >
            > > VERY prettily said, and I'm intrigued about Miss Pfeiffer. I
            > foresee a
            > > DVD in my future tonight!
            > >
            > > Winston
            > >
            >
            > If you haven't seen the film yet, wait until you are finished with
            > the book. I've seen the film a couple of times and the darn faces
            of
            > Michelle Pfeiffer, Daniel Day-Lewis and Winona Ryder are
            immovable.
            > I finally just gave in and pictured them since I had no way of
            > creating new faces in my head. But I am realizing why Scorsese
            > decided to make this film. I always thought it odd for him, but
            New
            > York is always his subject and this is a wonderful New York-story
            to
            > go with his other fascinating New York societies/subcultures like
            > Taxi Driver and Good Fellas. But in looking at the Internet Movie
            > Database I found that this book has been put to film no less than
            > five or six different times, once in Russian and one version as far
            > back as 1924 which would have made the story more or less modern
            day
            > instead of the period piece that it's forced to be now.
            >
            > jason
          • Kathy Vidovich
            Jason, I saw the film first too and had the same problem. But it was Pfeiffer and Ryder I found particularly indelible - somehow Day-Lewis despite being a
            Message 5 of 10 , Jun 5, 2003
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              Jason, I saw the film first too and had the same problem. But it was
              Pfeiffer and Ryder I found particularly indelible - somehow Day-Lewis
              despite being a handsome man and a remarkable actor did not haunt me nearly
              as much while I read the book. Go figure. ;-)

              Tad - thanks for the tip on "Parade's End". I have always wanted to read
              some FMF and I put in on reserve at the library shortly after reading your
              email. I should have it in a few days.
              -----Original Message-----
              From: jason3778 [mailto:jason3778@...]
              Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 9:39 AM
              To: modernlibrary100greatestbooks@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: [ModernLibrary 100 Greatest Books] Re: A of I - Initial
              Observations


              >
              > VERY prettily said, and I'm intrigued about Miss Pfeiffer. I
              foresee a
              > DVD in my future tonight!
              >
              > Winston
              >

              If you haven't seen the film yet, wait until you are finished with
              the book. I've seen the film a couple of times and the darn faces of
              Michelle Pfeiffer, Daniel Day-Lewis and Winona Ryder are immovable.
              I finally just gave in and pictured them since I had no way of
              creating new faces in my head. But I am realizing why Scorsese
              decided to make this film. I always thought it odd for him, but New
              York is always his subject and this is a wonderful New York-story to
              go with his other fascinating New York societies/subcultures like
              Taxi Driver and Good Fellas. But in looking at the Internet Movie
              Database I found that this book has been put to film no less than
              five or six different times, once in Russian and one version as far
              back as 1924 which would have made the story more or less modern day
              instead of the period piece that it's forced to be now.

              jason



              Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



              To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              modernlibrary100greatestbooks-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.