Reading this book made me search for the old Frankenstein movies. My library had a 2-disc set which included:
Frankenstein
Bride of Frankenstein
Son of Frankenstein
Ghost of Frankenstein
House of Frankenstein
I had only seen the original. I was surprised at how much Young Frankenstein literally pulled from these movies. The knockers. Igor with the horn. The blind man with first food, then drink, then cigar. But mostly the inspector with the wooden arm. I was sure Brooks and Wilder had made up the scene with the darts, where the inspector jammed them into his arm for holding while he tossed. Nope, that was actually in Son of.
Some fun trivia to spring on your friends. The first Igor was not Igor. He was Fritz.
I took an intermission from my history books and read “Win” by Harlan Coben. This is his first book featuring Windsor Horne Lockwood III the longtime supporting character in Coben’s Myron Bolitar series. Lots of references to Myron in the novel but he doesn’t make an appearance.
Book is typical Coben that keeps you turning the pages. A couple loose ends remain when the last page is turned so perhaps they will be addressed in the next book or a book down the road.
Bob Green
Lots of talk about history these days, what to teach our kids, etc. I’ll avoid that loaded topic, but wonder whether my current read — at least a much-shortened version thereof — might interest one or two of you on this thread.
I’m reading James Oakes, The Crooked Path to Abolition: Abraham Lincoln and the Antislavery Constitution (2021). Oakes is and has been for several decades one of the foremost historians of slavery and emancipation. Short book, 220 pages. Even that might be more than you want. But if the topic interests you at all, just read the Preface. Brilliant summary, 20 pages.
And ... just in case anyone wants something close to the full “life and times of Lincoln,” there are many truly fine studies. None finer, imo, than William Lee Miller’s 2-volume study: Lincoln’s Virtues: An Ethical Biography (2002), and President Lincoln: The Duty of a Statesman (2008).
What do you guys think about people who say the read a book when they only listened to the audiobook? That feels like cheating to me, somehow.
Speaking of listening, anyone familiar with Roger Bennett of "Men in Blazers" fame would enjoy his quick read memoir, "Reborn in the USA" which is focused on how he always considered himself an American trapped in the body and circumstances of a Liverpool Brit. It is a very warm hearted love letter to America, his adopted home.
https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-r...rn-in-the-usa/
Just started listening to an audio version of "The President is Missing" which is a book by James Patterson with a co-author credit to Bill Clinton. I've picked it up mostly for curiosity. There is a sequel (?) "The President's Daughter" by the two that was recently released.
So far through the first little bit, it has thankfully stayed partisanly ambiguous.
Do you remember these tests in junior high?
Would you rather:
A) Read a book.
B) Be read a book.
C) Read a book to someone else.
D) Watch the movie.
Ok, I made the last one up. But I distinctly remember that question, they were already trying to pigeonhole us into careers. For example, if you'd like to read to someone they thought you would be good for social work.
People with kids, do they still do these sorts of tests?
The nice thing about audiobooks is that I can listen to them while I do yardwork, whereas I can't read a book when I'm on the tractor or weed whacker.
I've got these on my wishlist.
https://www.amazon.com/Worktunes-Wir.../dp/B0146A4SWA
I usually walk about 7-16 miles every weekend (weather permitting), and can cover about 2.5-5 hours of a book while exercising by listening to an audiobook. I get to kill two birds with one stone. Otherwise I have to choose which to do.
I agree that audiobooks are fine and fill a need, I just think it’s weird for people to say they read a book instead of “I listened to a book”. I am wondering if my feeling is shared or am I just defending some kind of honesty standard that is outdated?
Just finished reading The Broken Heart of America: St. Louis and the Violent History of the United States, by Walter Johnson (not the submarining pitcher of a century ago, but a history prof at Harvard). His point is that the westward expansion of the United States was dually fueled by the desire for empire-building and by racism (especially against Indians, and then Blacks). I have lived in St. Louis for over 40 years and there is stuff in the book that I didn't know (especially about the early days). I'll caution you that Johnson doesn't even pretend to be giving a balanced account; for example, he consistently refers to the August 2014 "murder" of Mike Brown in Ferguson without even mentioning any of the evidence or testimony about Brown's own behavior that would cast doubt on his conclusion.
The one-sidedness made even a left-leaner like me cringe, but overall the book, while pretty dense, was worth reading. Probably the most interesting part had to do with the 20th-century "redevelopment" efforts that did more harm than good.
Also, I'll add that I discussed this post with the mods before submitting it, and they suggested that I mention that this post about reading material is not an invitation to discuss the substantive issues mentioned in the post, which would clearly be PPB.