The Last Werewolf

The Last Werewolf
by
Glen Duncan
narrated by
Robin Sachs

Jake is a werewolf - the last werewolf. Or, so he finds out at the onset of the story as his familiar Harley informs him that the Berliner has been killed. I admit it, I'm intrigued even though the werewolf myth has never held much interest for me (though, I really like what White Wolf games did with it for the their World of Darkness RPG).
Jake is initially ambivalent about what he should do. He's 200 years old and tired of living. He's not the type to commit suicide, but he's also not that interested in getting away from the W.O.C.U.P. hunter who will kill him at the next full moon. Wait, the what? Oh, there just the semi-secret fraternal order of monster hunters, apparently specializing in hunting werewolves.
Duncan gives us nuggets of wisdom from books written by vampires and it's just a given that they exist. He sets up one quote from a vampire author that states that the two are pretty much polar opposites, with the exception that they are both immortals, though W.O.C.U.P. seems to think that werewolves live to be about 400 years old under optimal conditions.
Harley points out to Jake that a legendary text which purports to unmask the origin of lycanthropy is likely real and that he has a hint as to someone who knows its whereabouts. Did I mention that Harley works for W.O.C.U.P.? Jake is not interested.
The above description gets you through the first two disks - two-ninths - of the book. I've left out some stuff, namely the stuff that bored the crap out of me and caused me to decide that this book wasn't worth my time. I left out all the sex, which is easily half the story up to this point. And when I say sex, I really mean graphically explicit fucking. Jake explains to us why as a werewolf that he can only have sex with prostitutes. Okay, Duncan gives a believable reason, except that the amount of time discussing the prostitute-fucking is way out of proportion to the time spent on the reason why. The reason is really just a bit of self-righteous justification for why he can include the fuck scenes.
Am I a prude? I don't think so. I'm fine with sex in stories - I'm even better with it if it furthers the story, or does something ridiculous like emotionally advance the characters. But I am so not interested in reading porn novels, especially ones with overtones of violence towards women and misogyny. If a character has to say that he's not misogynistic, that he just seems that way, odds are he's misogynistic. Perhaps this actually had something to do what the story, but I felt like it was the author speaking to me.
Why did I give this book three hours of my life? The narrator. Mr. Sachs does an amazing job. Sure, he's a classically trained British actor which sets a pretty good base, but he was also in the story, and not just some bloke obviously reading a script. But even he couldn't make me put in the third CD.
Sorry, Duncan, I didn't like your book. If you put out a version of it that cut all the porn, let me know and I'll give that a listen.

Library essay contest

I am kind of slow in putting this up, but in my defense, I thought it was going to be in the newspaper, or at the very least on the newspaper's website.

During June, the library held an essay/writing contest. There were two categories, each with different questions, open to all ages.

Category 1: How is a library in a democracy beneficial to you? (First prize was a camcorder, second place was $50)

My entry:

When I was a child, the library was my portal to a whole universe of ideas that I had never imagined existed. The possibilities were endless, and for each new thing I learned or imagined, a dozen more were hinted at, waiting right around the corner for me to discover.

As I grew into a young adult, becoming more aware of the world around me, my attention shifted away from this magical world of endless possibilities towards the social and political issues.

As an adult, I have come to believe that access to all notions and ideas is integral to my way of life. They are necessary to a democracy - the polis should be as well informed as possible. While mass media try to push certain views in order to make a profit, the library offers access to all of the views for examination. The closest a person or community, particularly a democracy, can get to a true Marketplace of Ideas - the notion that if all ideas are presented for public inspection, the good ones will rise to the top, because there is a wisdom in the individual and the community that will know the best idea when presented with it - is the library. For these reasons the library is not only beneficial to me, but necessary to me and my community for a democracy even to exist. It is the place where the ideas are and everyone is encouraged to come and partake of them.

Category 2: Why I love my free library? (fist lace a digital camera, second place $50)

My entry:

Oh library, home of my heart, how do I love thee?

Is it the way which you hold me as a lover in your tender embrace while I dream of things that were and things that will never be?

Is it the gentle questioning and encouraging, but never judging, of a parent as I pursue intellectual interests and flights of fancy?

Perhaps it is as the teacher showing me the wide world from the comfort and safety of a soft chair and a firm table?

Maybe it is as the friend who not caring if I'm down on my luck or riding high, provide me with your all every time?

Oh library, home of my mind, it is all of these and more, the countless smiles brought my lips and those of other patrons, the vital questions answered, the important services provided, and knowing that if I really need something, that you will find a way to make it so.

The only other rule, was that a writer could only place in one category..

I was given the option of taking $50 in category 1, or the camera from category 2. :) While I like the second one better, I already have a nice camera, so I took the money and ran.

Drift by Rachel Maddow

Drift
by
Rachel Maddow
read by
Rachel Maddow

I didn't know what to expect going into this book. I knew Maddow was left of center, but not how far or to what ends. I had heard her described once as the foil to Rush Limbaugh. I had no idea what that meant at the time. I think I might now. I had seen her once on the Daily Show with John Stewart. She seemed funny in an intelligent kind of way, and had a radio voice, which made more sense when she revealed in the book that she worked for Air America.
This book is scary. Maddow never says things like "secret government" or "cabal" but you get the strong feeling that there is one, and not the kind we are used to, run by the politicians or religious leaders, but rather by the military, well ex-military really, and the captains of industry, to which I probably should have been thinking "junta".
This is not a book that claims that all Republican Presidents are bad and all Democratic Presidents are good. It is pretty much that they all suck. What's that old axiom about power corrupting?
I was asked when finished if I would recommend this, and I didn't even hesitate. I told her "no". Well written, well thought-out, well presented, and I believe largely very accurate. All of which make this book uber-depressing. This isn't one of those books where you feel empowered at the end, you know, go out and register some voters, call your Representative. I felt quite the opposite as a matter of fact. But, maybe I should have recommended it to her, and ask her to pass it on to her friends and I could write about it on facebook and we could mobilize and start a movement, one that our Representatives and Senators would have to listen to, right until they hired some contractors who are still being ignored by Big Media to come and quiet us, the kind of quieting that you never speak up from again. And while I could fight the fight, or whatever, I wouldn't put my friend and her friends and my facebook friends through this. Part of me thinks I am writing this to be silly to put a point on what I am saying - the argument from absurdity - but an equal part of me thinks that's really how it would go if we became the squeaky wheel.
Bleh. Today I am a pessimist, or maybe a realist, or maybe they're the same thing after all.

Paul (2011)

Not counting the franchise films where he plays supporting roles, the last comedy by Simon Pegg was 2009's How to Lose Friends & Alienate People, which I must say was an amazingly shitty movie, so much so that I almost swore off watching Pegg ever again. The abysmal crappiness of this film was compounded by the film immediately before it, 2008's Run, Fatboy, Run - directed by David Schwimmer, whose main qualifications seem to have been that he could show up to the set - this was another turd of a film, though not as bad as the next one. You could see how after watching these two films, in which one of my favorite comedic actors just craps out, why I would be hesitant to watch Paul.
Two factors brought me to this film, to give Pegg another chance. First, I read Nerd Do Well, Pegg's 2011 memoir, and it was funny and was read by Pegg himself. Second, Nick Frost  costars with Pegg in this film and I loved him with Pegg in Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz.
I am so glad I watched this. Ok, to be completely forthcoming, I would have eventually watched it even if I hadn't been heartened by the book, or known that Frost was going to be in it. I just would have waited a couple of years like I did with the pair of craptastic films mentioned at the top.
Is this film as funny or as original as Shaun of the Dead? Yes, I think so. It has very much the same quirky feel to it and a similar type of ending. The supporting cast really makes this film pop just like SotD, in the way that Bill Nighy took the small role of Pegg's step-father and ended up owning most of the scenes he was in, Jason Bateman plays Agent Zoil with the same kind of understated brilliance. These two men are clearly better actors than Pegg and Frost, by which I mean no disrespect, and give their respective movies the push they need to be thoroughly enjohable. I have got to mention two other actors in the film and the surprise performances we saw. Sigourney Weaver is the head of whatever agency is in charge of keeping Paul's secret and is the movie's villain, a role which we rarely see her in and to be objective about it, that may quite likely because she would fall flat with them just like she did with this role. I am reminded of the last time I saw Weaver host Saturday Night Live - it was totally horrible, as he lines were delivered as if she had never seen them before, as she stared at the cue cards in a way that actually made you believe that she had not spent any time rehearsing the skits. Interestingly, the other notable performance is by Kristen Wiig, of Saturday Night Live fame. Fortunately, it's nothing like Weaver's performance. I can't say that I'm that big of a fan of the stuff Wiig did on SNL, some was good, some was bad, but most were not memorable. However, her character in Whip It! was great and she does the same in this film, being a total joy to watch.
Finally, I can't write this without mentioning the elephant in the room - Seth Rogen doing the voice of Paul. If you've read my thoughts on Rogen, you know that I dont' think much of him as an actor, which is not to say that I think he sucks. He does the doofus stoner brilliantly. Unfortunately, that seems to be all that he does. Name one movie for me where he isn't that character, I dare you - even in the Green Hornet for god's sake. His voice works for Paul in that the little alien is a doofus stoner, though I've got to admit it was hard to take at first because Paul is so small and Rogen is so big, Paul is so bald, while Rogen is so hairy. Once I got over that, it was fine.

Layer Cake (2005)

I've watched a lot of movies about gangsters, about wanna-be gangsters, about business men mistaken for gangsters, about people trying to break into the life, about people trying to break out of the life. There comes a point when you think that you've seen just about all there is to see in the genre. Sure, you'll still watch new films because of this actor or that set-up, and they're enjoyable, but the enjoyment is much like the premise, derivative.
Then along comes a movie like this one, which I must say that I've known about for years but didn't watch because it was always described to me as a, "British gangster flick about a good enough bloke who wants to get out of the life but due to matters beyond his control can't". Well, that sounds an awful lot like every Jason Statham gangster film I've ever seen. Sure, that first one was entertaining, and the second one had some funny bits, and the third one had that one hot actress, and then finally I'm not watching "that" film anymore. but then one day, as you're working your way through a particular actor's works, in my case Daniel Craig, it comes up again and you give in and think that at least Craig and co-star Sienna Miller are pretty to look at. And then you notice once you've finally got the box in your hand that the film also stars some other really great actors like Colm Meaney and George Harris, oh and some guy named Michael Gambon.
Craig plays Mr. X, well that's not his name, but they make a point of never naming him. He's a drug dealer at the distribution level. When the story begins he is finishing what is going to be his last job. He's put aside a lot of money which he has laundered and also has a stake in a very lucrative and more importantly legitimate business. But the boss that X works for has other plans. There is a girl that needs to be found and there is a huge - million pill - drug deal that needs to be brokered.
Nobody is what they seem in this film. X is a "businessman", or so he states at the beginning, but by the end of the film, well he's as gangster as gangster gets. There's his boss that pretty much forces him into this deal, who turns out to be a snitch. There is cool-headed Morty (Harris) that is X's right-hand man, that is until he runs into a guy who sent him down the river for ten, that when Morty is done with him is in a coma after an extremely sever beating in a diner. There is the top-of-the-top criminal overlord, Temple (Gambon) who turns out to be just as dirty and duplicitous as the gangsters he looks down upon.
The girl that X is supposed to be rescuing is Temple's daughter and she doesn't need rescuing, but that puts X on Temple's radar. And the drugs to be moved were stolen from a former Serb Warlord that wants his merchandise back along with the head of everyone involved.
Every time you think that X is down, he's up, and every time that you think he's up, he's down. But in the end, he ends up with his retirement after all and the girl. For a minute or two.
The movie is brutal in a couple of parts, but nothing that you wouldn't expect from this genre. You're also surprised by who does and who doesn't die and who kills them. I think this was good enough to get me to take another look at the gangster films again, particularly British gangster films.