On a sudden whim I took and (expensive) fancy to go to the Elton John-Billy Joel Concert in Philly on Saturday, the 1st of August. The most exciting part, I have to admit, was selling my spare ticket off, at about the third the price I paid for it, to the scalpers outside the stadium. About half an hour after I went inside, the gentleman who had the misfortune of buying this ticket at about twice the price I paid for it, showed up, and we spent the half an hour or so, commiserating with each other about the concert.
The concert itself, was very good, even if Elton John's accent made him half-un-understandable, half the time; if I hadn't already deciphered the lyrics of his songs on the radio, I would have not understood a word. Billy Joel came out, and did ridiculous things with the mike. He is more of the showman of the two (or maybe just without the British reserve?), and he had some really good accompanists.
Got lost on my way back post-concert (its a given... when have I ever reached anywhere without getting lost first?) and got back home at a horrendous 1 o'clock at night (no, not a party animal).
Next day went to NY which was rainy and horrible (The first time I've said such a thing about that city), this summer has been an absolute wash out.
I bought a book to read at the concert which also proved to be an absolute wash out. Its A Little History of the World" by E.H.Gombrich. I was expecting something like Bill Bryson's "A Short History of Nearly Everything"... but this is decidedly a book for pre-teens only. Anyone know any pre-teens with an interest in History?Yeah, me neither.
Also read Jefferey Archer's "Paths of Glory" and I find, that while his books are still readable, his characterizations annoy me more and more. Why are his heroes flawless paragons of virue, while thier foils are inevitable fatally flawed (or at least not well-born - with Archer the sins are virtually the same) . Besides which, I'm growing tired of his plots- which are increasingly similar. Kane and Abel was amazing the first time I read it, but having found that formula, all his books follow the same path, more or less...
Then, I read "Brokeback Mountain". I'd seen the movie (and wept copiously), and approached the slim volume, that really didn't look like it would make much material for a movie, somewhat dubiously. At first read, I admit, I didn't care for it. But it got me thinking. I realized that the movie was just a love story- replace one guy with a girl and you get same old, same old. That doesn't happen with the book. Its really clear, they're both men, and you can't replace one and get the same story. Also- that size is perfect for a movie- most movies take an enormous book and condense it, whereas what they should be doing is taking a small sized book and just doing it as it is. So much of what's in a movie is visual, a fat book that contains all those scenes which in words just take up a few chapters, can take an hour in a movie.
2 comments:
A book to read during the concert?!..LOL..are u serious? how much reading did you get done? :D
I agree with the Jeffrey Archer thing... he is getting too steriotypical with his novels... but is is good for people like me because since we know the story of pretty much every novel he writes, we can claim that we have read almost all of his work (without ever reading them).. :p
Didn't finish the book :) . That comment is really true about Archer!!!
Post a Comment