Augustus

Are you familiar with John Williams 

No, not the composer. I'm talking about the author of the same name.
 

During his lifetime, Williams wrote four novels, three of which are today considered classics of 20th Century American literature. Augustus, which I recently re-read, being one of them. 

Originally published in 1972, Augustus was to be Williams' final novel. In it, the author takes us back in time to ancient Rome. The Augustus of the title is, of course, none other than Augustus Caesar, though when the novel begins, he's only a shy and scholarly youth named Octavian. It's not long, however, before the murder of his great-uncle, Julius Caesar, has put Octavian on the path which will make him the first Emperor of Rome. 
 

Augustus is an epistolary novel, meaning (for those of you who don't know) that its plot is told mainly via letters that the characters write to each other. It should be noted that although he's the central character, Octavian's perspective is kept from the reader until the last portion of the novel. For the majority of Augustus, the Emperor is seen through the eyes of those around him, whether family, friends or enemies.
 

While each of Williams' three major novels are well worth reading, I have to single out Augustus as my personal favorite. It's a masterpiece of historical fiction that deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as other novels focusing on Roman Emperors, such as Graves' I, Claudius and Yourcenar's Memories of Hadrian. 
 

Highly recommended.

Akira Toriyama (1955-2024)

 To my surprise (and sadness), I just learned that manga legend Akira Toriyama passed away earlier this month.

I don't think I've ever mentioned it on this blog before, but I used to be an avid reader of the Dragon Ball manga when I was younger. Every month, I used to go down to the local bookstore, or drugstore and see if the latest volume had come in and if it had? Well, needless to say, my day was made. 

I need not tell you of Dragon Ball's legacy. Its one of the most popular and influential comics to come out of Japan. What I will mention though, is its impact on the publishing of manga here in Sweden. 

Sure, manga and anime had been available in one form or another. before Dragon Ball. But, it was when Carlsen Comics decided to bring the adventures of Son Goku and his friends to the Swedish public, that the floodgates truly opened. I don't think its an exaggeration to say that Dragon Ball helped make manga and anime mainstream over here, in a way that it hadn't been before. 

Eventually, my interested in Dragon Ball began to fade (as a sidenote, I personally consider that Dragon Ball was at its best during its early years, when Goku was a kid/teenager and the comic was a comedic martial-arts/fantasy epic, influenced by Journey to the West), and today, there are plenty of other manga that I prefer over it. That said, I will always look back on it with fondness.

Rest in Peace, Akira Toriyama and thank you.

Dune: Part II

 This Thursday, my Mom and I went to the cinema together and watched the second part of Denis Villeneuve's Dune adaptation. Here are my brief (largely spoiler-free) thoughts on it.

As an adaption, Dune: Part II, is not completely accurate to its source material (though that was, perhaps, to be expected). Among other things, it reduces one fairly prominent character to a cameo and drops another completely. The Movie also diverges from the book in some significant ways, particularly in its depiction of Paul's and Chani's relationship. As a result, the film also ends on a different note from the novel.

Would the purist in me have preferred it if the film had stuck closer to its source material? Yes. Did I enjoy the film in spite of these liberties? Absolutely. 

Though I personally believe that the ideal format for a Dune adaptation would be an animated series, Villeneuve's films are the best adaptation of this classic work of science fiction that I can think of. 

Like its predecessor, Dune II looks great (this is a movie that demands to be watched in theaters) and, taken as a whole, the duology does capture the epic scope of Frank Herbert's novel. Acting is uniformly good and the only character who feels significantly different from their literary counterpart is Chani.

One quick final note: Part II does nothing to make sure that the viewer is up to speed. If its been awhile since you've seen part I, I recommend that you either re-watch it, read the novel (or, if you already have, re-read it). Alternatively, if you are feeling lazy, you can just look up a synopsis online.

A very brief rant concerning anthro characters in fiction

 Lately,I've been watching YouTuber Totally Not Mark's videos on Hunter x Hunter, one of my favorite manga/anime in the battle-shounen genre. So far, I've been enjoying the videos and have found myself in agreement with TNM about a lot of things and I will definitely continue watching them. However, as I watched his second video on the Greed Island arc, something happened that made me pause the video and type out this brief post.

In that video TNM brings up the 2016 animated movie Sing and cites one of the reason for it being a bad film is due to the fact that there's no reason for its anthropomorphic characters not to simply be humans. I've seen this criticism leveled against the movie before (by I Hate Everything) and I've always disagreed with it. Now, this is not me defending Sing. I have not seen Sing, nor have I any desire to do so, I just don't think that this is a valid criticism of any movie, or any work of fiction that features an anthropomorphic cast. Never once in his Donald Duck/Uncle Scrooge comics does Carl Barks justify that his characters are talking waterfowl (or pigs or dog-people) and yet, these are some of the greatest American comics ever made.  Is it neat when a piece of media takes into consideration what a world populated exclusively by anthros would look like, á la Disney's Zootopia? Sure. Is it a necessity or requirement? Absolutely not.

Oh, and by the way? The Fact that I myself have a story in which none of the cast is human without really 'justifying' it has nothing to do with me writing this. 

Well, OK, maybe a little...

No Likable Characters

 Picture this, dear Reader: You are on a review-site (Goodreads, IMDB. Whatever, it doesn't matter) and while you are there, you decide to check out the reviews of something you watched/read/played recently and, in some of the less enthusiastic reviews, you find the above statement or a variation thereof. 

This statement has always bothered me, because I seldom feel that its valid as criticism. Note that I said seldom, not never, there are definitely times when the creator(s) of a work intended a character to be liked by the audience and failed at making them so.That said, if a character isn't likable, nine times out of ten, its because they were not meant to be. 

And yet, a lot of people seem to treat is as such, considering likability to be tantamount when talking about characters in a work of fiction.

Why is that? Personally, I think its because people tend to equate 'likable' with 'interesting'. Now, to be fair, the two tend to go hand in hand, even for me. I know that, if I find a character to be likable, its a fair assumption  that I find them interesting as well. 

However, just because two things are connected does not mean they are synonymous. And so, I shall explain (or at least attempt) how the two of them differ, in my opinion. 

Basically, to me, a character being likable means that I like that character, as a person. They have my sympathy and I would not mind socializing with them in real-life.

None of the above need apply to a character that I simply find engaging in the role given to them by the narrative. Some of my favorite characters in fiction are horrible people, even outright monsters. However, they are compelling monsters and ultimately, that's what counts: The Worst crime a fictional character can be guilty of is not mass-murder, enslavement or any other real-life atrocity. No, its to be boring.

Thoughts on An American Tragedy

Four-hundred pages into Theodore Dreiser's novel, An American Tragedy, I realized with a sort of dread that I wasn't even half-way through the damn thing yet.

Look, I'm an avid reader and I certainly have nothing against a so-called "door-stopper" every now and then. However, the difference between An American Tragedy and, say, Anna Karenina is that Tolstoy's novel never felt long. I think a big reason why An American Tragedy does is the fact that Dreiser's prose frankly, isn't very good. In fact, I'd even daresay that my own prose is better (and that's not something you'll hear me say often in regards to professionally published authors) and its become more and more noticeable the further into the book I've progressed

"Wait", you protest. "There must be something worthwhile about this book? Otherwise, why would you have read so many pages of it already?"
You're absolutely correct, dear reader. I can, in fact, point to two positive things about this book: First of all, the main character, Clyde Griffiths, with his flaws and weaknesses, is portrayed well. Secondly, the central premise of the novel isn't bad, someone like Flannery O'Connor would have made a great novella out of it.
That said, its not really a story that needed over 800 pages to be told and quite frankly, there are other books more worthy of my time (and yours).

Regarding Lists

For awhile now I've been thinking of updating and expanding my old Top Animated Shows list. I'm not sure when I'll get around to it, but it will be sometime this year.

One thing I decided to do with this updated list is that I will no longer rank the shows on it in any particular order. This is mostly because I find it more and more difficult to do so. Yes, Revolutionary Girl Utena remains my number one (I doubt that will change anytime soon), but beyond that it gets a bit more iffy. After all, tastes are complicated and may change with time and while I haven't grown to dislike any of the shows on my old list, some of them I like a bit less than I used to.

So, yes, the new list will most likely be in alphabetical order, though I also consider listing the shows chronologically, with the oldest one first. I haven't decided yet.

Than again, other option would be to follow in Flawfinder's footsteps and simply do a list of things I like in any medium, without any descriptions. One advantage to this format would be that I could easily go back to it and either add new favorites or remove old ones that I feel no longer interest me. I must admit that its an idea I find appealing.

The Iliad at the Almeida

Somehow, I managed to miss the Almeida Theatre's live-reading of The Illiad when it was first streamed, but fortunately, the whole thing is still available on their site until 2016. I strongly recommend giving it a listen; the various readers (which include among others Brian Cox and John Simm) does a great job at bringing this great work of literature, with all its passions and intensities, to life.
Here's a link