Thursday, 10 March 2011

Thoughtful Thursday, 10 March


Welcome to Thoughtful Thursday!

This week I would like to discuss friendship, especially Internet friendship. Do you believe it's possible to befriend anybody without seeing him/her in real world, at least from time to time?

Do Internet friends are important to you - as important as real life friends? Do you often make friends on the Internet? What do you think of so-called social network sites - do they, in your opinion, help meeting true friends or not?


Here are some quotes I've chosen as food for thoughts:

 

"Fate chooses your relations, you choose your friends."
- Jacques Delille (1738 - 1813) French poet. 

"Thy friendship oft has made my heart to ache: do be my enemy for friendship's sake."
- William Blake

"One loyal friend is worth ten thousand relatives."
- Euripides, Greek playwrite

"True friendship is like sound health; the value of it is seldom known until it be lost."
- Charles Caleb Colton 

"Each friend represents a world in us, a world possibly not born until they arrive, and it is only by this meeting that a new world is born."
- Anais Nin 

"My friends are my estate."
- Emily Dickinson

"A friend is one who walks in when others walk out"
-Walter Winchell 

"A friend is someone who is there for you when he'd rather be anywhere else."
- Len Wein 

"It is one of the blessings of old friends that you can afford to be stupid with them."
- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Wednesday, 9 March 2011

Movie review: Gosford Park


Gosford Park  (2001)
Directed by: Robert Altman
Screenplay: Julian Fellowes, based on an idea by Altman, Bob Balaban.

Cast: Maggie Smith, Kristin Scott Thomas, Hellen Mirren, Ryan Phillippe, Michael Gambon, Charles Dance, Clive Owen, Tom Hollander

Plot:

Set in the 1930's, the story takes place in an old fashioned English country house, owned by Sir William McCordle (Michael Gambon) and his much younger, glamorous wife, lady Sylvia (Kristin Scott Thomas). One November day they decide to organize a nice shooting party, inviting just family and friends – two sisters-in-law with their husbands, a cousin with friends, an elderly, imperious Aunt Constance (Maggie Smith), who arrives with her new maid, Mary (Kelly Macdonald). Well, almost everybody arrives with a valet or a maid in tow.

As far as the busy servants are concerned, the weekend's chief excitement stems from the presence of Ivor Novello (Jeremy Northam), Sir William's cousin who is an enormously successful composer and a film star. Accompanying him is a Hollywood movie producer Morris Weissman (Bob Balaban) who wants an opportunity to research English upper-class life for his next movie; tending to Weissman is his shifty valet, Henry (Ryan Phillippe).

Observing the interactions of the guests we can notice immediately that almost nobody joined the party just to have fun in the scenic English countryside. Elderly Sir William is rich and his favours might make or break the fortune of other family members. Everyone, from the servants to the venerable Aunt Constance, who urgently needs her regular allowance to keep up appearances, seems unhealthily reliant upon Sir William's largesse or the lack  thereof.  As the weekend goes on and different secrets are revealed, it  turns out that almost everyone, no matter above or below stairs, bears a bigger or smaller grudge against Sir William. He has always been an unpleasant, selfish, ruthless man and he doesn't intend to improve. How far will they go to get what they want and who will be the fastest?

What I liked:

The cast is really splendid –everybody seems to be the right person in the right place. Of the two dozen actors with significant screen time, Smith is the best when it comes to steal a scene, knowing just how to maximize her opportunities. "Me, I haven't a snobbish bone in my body!" – really I almost cried with laughter hearing that! Even more impressive, but not so funny, is Mirren's repressed Wilson, a woman who has covered deep sorrow and pangs of conscience by working 24/7 and building absolute authority in her domain. Also Kristin Scott Thomas is not bad as the cold-hearted, snobbish, dissolute Lady Sylvia.

I loved the deft blend of  masters and servants’ stories and a very acute analysis of pre-war British class structure, with all that horrible formality and snobbery on both sides. Really few films have ever taken so much trouble to show how a house like this actually worked in all its specifics.

Using an Agatha Christie murder mystery scheme in which everyone is forced to remain in a big house as a crime is investigated, was a clever trick to keep all these “interesting creatures” a little longer together, allowing them to interact and cheat each other. The fact that the mystery actually strays from any Christie book I found very refreshing. 

The murder of Sir William is definitely not the of the story's pivotal moment and the sleuth who investigates it differs greatly from either Monsieur Poirot or Miss Marple; however, because of that fact, he becomes definitely more lifelike. Waving his pipe about, airily asking insipid questions and not even thinking about the investigating possibilities among the servants, the police inspector (Stephen Fry) seems to lack any zeal for his job or even normal human curiosity – he just wants to do his duty and return home, that’s what he is paid for. Poirot would be scandalized but it is a typical  behaviour, isn't it? After all who cares why a filthy rich, nasty aristocrat was murdered by one of his equally nasty but a lot poorer relatives and/or friends?
 
Finally the costumes by Jenny Beavan are uncommonly detailed and generally every scenery detail is a feast for the eyes.

What I didn’t like:

I liked pretty much everything but there are a few things I would like to mention here. There are so many characters here that you spend a good deal of time trying to sort out who's related to whom, what the pecking order is downstairs, etc. I hope to get it better after watching the movie for the second time. Also if you expect plenty of sensational, action-movie scenes you might be disappointed – the whole murder investigation is just a pretext to keep all the characters together. Even the murder itself is not presented in an exciting way.
 
Final verdict:

A delightful movie, worth owning as a DVD, especially if you like the period.

BTW what do you think of including movie reviews in this blog? Every comment is appreciated.

Sunday, 6 March 2011

Concise history with fangs - part three

I didn’t manage to fit two interesting bios into the second part of my fanged history, although chronologically they belonged there. Their stories are too important to be simply skimmed and be done with, especially if you want to understand the further fate of vampire myths in the 20th and 21st century. These two people were highborn, influential and rich but certainly weren’t affected by vampirism. Why did they become the modern vamps' templates, portrayed and copied in many books and movies? It seems mainly because of a propaganda campaign implemented by a sly and dishonest king and also because we like horror stories too much to care whether they are true or not. Let me present today...

Part three


Two ultimate vampires who weren’t vampires at all.


Ladies first – the life and legend surrounding Countess Elizabeth Báthory de Ecsed (Báthory Erzsébet in Hungarian, 7 August 1560 – 21 August 1614) is dark and strange indeed. She has been labeled the most prolific female serial killer in history and, of course, a vampire. It is difficult to explain why a noblewoman like her turned a cruel murderer.
Erzsébet BáthoryElizabeth Bathory via Wikipedia

Her early life promised well. Elizabeth came from the renowned Báthory family of Hungarian nobility with a dragon adorning their family crest. Through her mother, Elizabeth was the niece of Stefan Báthory, King of Poland and Duke of Transylvania. She was a well-educated woman who could read and write in four languages - as a young girl she learned Latin, German and Greek. She was also interested in science and astronomy – something not very common among highborn ladies, especially at that times. There were several instances mentioned where she intervened on behalf of destitute women, including a woman whose husband was captured by the Turks and a woman whose daughter was raped and impregnated by a Turkish soldier– it might prove that she was kind and compassionate.

Young Elizabeth got engaged to Ferenc Nádasdy, and the couple married on 8 May 1575. Right afterwards Elizabeth moved to Nádasdy Castle in Sárvár and spent much time on her own, while her husband studied in Vienna. Nádasdy’s wedding gift to Elizabeth was his home, Csejte Castle, situated in the Little Carpathians near Trencsén; the castle itself was surrounded by a village and agricultural lands, bordered by outcrops of the Little Carpathians. It shows that Elizabeth was highly appreciated. In 1578, Nádasdy became the chief commander of Hungarian troops, leading them to war against the Ottomans. With her husband away at war, Elizabeth Báthory managed business affairs and the estates instead. That role usually included providing for the Hungarian and Slovak peasants. During the height of the Long War (1593–1606), she was even charged with the defense of her husband's estates, which lay on the route to Vienna. She was trusted and skilled, a woman you could rely on in those hard times.
family coat of arms of the BáthorysFamily crest of the Bathorys via Wikipedia

In 1585, Elizabeth gave birth to a daughter, Anna. A second daughter, Ursula, and her first son, Thomas, both died at an early age. After this, Elizabeth had three more children so I suppose her marriage was quite happy. Elizabeth's husband died in 1604 at the age of 47, reportedly due to an injury sustained in battle. The couple had been married for 29 years. After the death of Ferenz Nadasdy strange killings started to happen around his widow.

Somewhere between 1602 and 1604, a Lutheran minister called István Magyari complained about some horrible atrocities, allegedly occuring on the lands governed by Elizabeth and with her consent; he did it both publicly and with the court in Vienna. The Hungarian authorities took some time to react but finally, in 1610, as the situation deteriorated, King Matthias II of Hungary (ETA: not the same ruler as King Matthias Corvinus - thanks Tracy for spotting it!!!) assigned György Thurzo, the Palatine of Hungary and Elizabeth's cousin, to investigate. Thurzó ordered two notaries to collect evidence. Even before obtaining the results, Thurzó debated further proceedings with Elizabeth's son Paul and two of her sons-in-law. A trial and execution would have caused a public scandal and disgraced more than one noble and influential family; also Elizabeth's considerable property would have been seized by the crown. Thurzó, along with Paul and her two sons-in-law desperately wanted to control the damage - they originally planned for Elizabeth to be hidden a nunnery, but as accounts of her murdering  the daughters of lesser nobility spread, it was agreed that Elizabeth Báthory should be kept under strict house arrest. I really wonder whether they believed in her guilt or allowed her to explain herself. It was also determined that king Matthias would not have to repay his large debt to her, for which he lacked sufficient funds.

In 1610 and 1611, the notaries collected testimony from more than 300 witnesses. The trial records include the testimony of the four defendants, as well as thirteen witnesses. Priests, noblemen and commoners were questioned.. According to all this testimony, initial victims were the adolescent daughters of local peasants, many of whom were lured to Csejte by offers of well-paid work as maidservants in the castle. Later, Elizabeth allegedly started killing off daughters of the lesser gentry, who were sent to her gynaeceum by hopeful parents to learn courtly etiquette and find good husbands. Abductions were said to have occurred as well.

The descriptions of torture that emerged during the trials were often based on hearsay. The atrocities described most consistently included burning or mutilation of hands and faces, biting the flesh of different body parts, freezing to death, starving, sexual abuse, and finally surgeries on victims. Horrible, nasty deeds of a deranged mind.

Some witnesses named relatives who died while at the gynaeceum. Others reported having seen traces of torture on dead bodies, some of which were buried in graveyards, and others in unmarked locations. According to the testimony of the defendants, Elizabeth Báthory tortured and killed her victims not only at Csejte but also on her other properties. In addition several other people were named for supplying Elizabeth Báthory with young women. A little-known figure named Anna Darvulia was rumored to have influenced Báthory, but Darvulia was lucky and dead long before the trial so unable to comment.

Thurzó went to Csejte Castle on 30 December 1610 with his men. They reportedly found one girl dead and one dying. Another woman was found wounded, others locked up. King Matthias had urged Thurzo to bring Elizabeth to court and two notaries were sent to collect further evidence, but in the end no court proceedings against her were ever commenced. Her family had seen to that.

The countess was bricked in a set of rooms (and remained so until her death) but her associates were brought to court. A trial was held on 7 January 1611 at Bicse, presided over by Royal Supreme Court judge Theodosious Syrmiensis de Szulo and 20 associate judges. All of the defendants were found guilty and condemned to death, the sentence being carried out immediately.

The exact number of young women allegedly tortured and killed by Elizabeth Báthory is unknown, though it is often speculated to be as high as 650, between the years 1585 and 1610. During the trial and before their execution, Szentes and Ficko reported 36 and 37 respectively, during their periods of service. The other defendants estimated a number of 50 or higher. Many Sárvár castle personnel estimated the number of bodies removed from the castle at between 100 to 200. One witness who spoke at the trial mentioned a book in which a total of over 650 victims was supposed to have been listed by Elizabeth herself. This number became part of the legend surrounding Báthory. Reportedly, the location of the diaries is unknown but 32 letters written by Báthory are stored in the Hungarian state archives in Budapest.

On 21 August 1614, Elizabeth Báthory was found dead in her castle. Since there were several plates of food untouched, her actual date of death is unknown. She was buried in the church of Csejte, but due to the villagers' uproar over having "The Tigress of Csejte" buried in their cemetery, her body was moved to her birth home, where it is interred at the Báthory family crypt.

Several theories have been suggested concerning perpetrators of these horrible crimes and their motives. Most people think that Elizabeth was guilty and her sadism was a result of a considerable amount of intermarriages and inbreeding among the Bathory family with the usual problems of this practice. Allegedly she had a degenerate aunt, Clara Bathory, who used to invite young, bored, lonely Elizabeth to her castle to have "fun" and might have taught her a thing or two about sadistic pleasures.


László Nagy has argued that Elizabeth Báthory was a victim of a conspiracy, though. The conspiracy theory is consistent with Hungarian history of the reign of Mathias II - there was great conflict between religions, including Protestant ones, and this was related to the extension of Habsburg power over Hungary. As a Transylvanian Protestant aristocrat, Elizabeth belonged to a group generally opposed to the Habsburgs and some powerful people might have arranged a case against her. Elizabeth's life inspired numerous stories during the eighteenth and 19th centuries. The most common motif of these works was of course that of the evil countess drinking and bathing in her victims' blood in order to retain her beauty or/and youth – a real “Bloody Countess” or even a “Bloody Queen” – in short a female vampire extraordinaire. It remains to be proven whether she was a sadist or an innocent victim of some major set-up.

Now the time for the most famous vampire aristocrat -Vlad III, Prince of Wallachia (1431–1476), more commonly known as Vlad the Impaler (Romanian: Vlad Tepes) or simply as Dracula.

His Romanian surname Drăculea (also spelled "Drakulya"), means "son of the dragon". It was a reference to his father, Vlad II Dracul, who had joined the Order of the Dragon (lat. Societas Draconistrarum). This institution was highly respected and elitist – a monarchical chivalric order for selected nobility. The Order primarily flourished in Germany and Italy. According to a surviving copy of its statute, the Order required its initiates to defend the Cross and fight the enemies of Christianity, in particular the Ottoman Turks. Theoretically all its members should have supported each other and fight one common enemy but in reality they often kind of forgot about their allegiances for the sake of politics and greed.

In 1436, Vlad II Dracul ascended the throne of Wallachia but soon he was ousted in 1442 by rival factions in league with Hungary, his Christian ally. He had no choice and secured Ottoman support for his return agreeing to pay tribute to the Sultan and also send him two legitimate sons, Vlad III and Radu to the Ottoman court. They were to serve as hostages of his loyalty. Vlad III Dracula was the ferocious one – he was often imprisoned, whipped and beaten because of his verbal abuse towards his trainers and stubborn behavior; his younger brother, Radu, was meeker and much easier to control - he converted to Islam, entered the service of Mehmed II (later known as the Conqueror), and was allowed into the Topkapi Palace, honoured by the title Bey; later he was even given command of the Janissary contingents. A total failure from Vlad’s point of view.

In December 1447, boyars in league with the Hungarians rebelled against Vlad Dracul again, and killed him in the marshes near Bălteni. Mircea, Dracul's eldest son and heir, was captured, blinded and buried alive. To prevent Wallachia from falling into the Hungarian fold, the Ottomans invaded the country and put young Vlad III on the throne. It must have been painful and humiliating for the young prince, being installed on the throne as his greatest enemies’ puppet. Beggars are not choosers though. Still his rule was short-lived as Hungarians invaded Wallachia defending their interests. Vlad fled to Moldavia, where he lived under the protection of his uncle, Bogdan II, but it seems bad luck followed - in October 1451, Bogdan was assassinated and Vlad fled to Transsylvania, then under the Hungarian rule.

In 1456, three years after the Ottomans had conquered Constantinople, they threatened Hungary by besieging Belgrade. The Hungarian king began a concerted counter-attack in Serbia with Vlad fighting by his side. While the king moved into Serbia and relieved the siege Vlad led his own contingent into Wallachia, reconquered his native land and killed its Hungarian-affiliated ruler, Vladislav II, in an epic hand-to-hand combat (I would love to see that). Vlad found Wallachia in a wretched state: constant war had resulted in rampant crime, falling agricultural production, and the virtual disappearance of trade. Regarding a stable economy essential to resisting external enemies, he used severe methods to restore order and prosperity. Vlad considered the boyars the chief cause of the constant strife as well as of the death of his father and brother. To secure his rule, he had many leading nobles killed and gave positions in his council, traditionally belonging to the greatest boyars, to persons of obscure origins, who would be loyal to him alone, and some to foreigners. For lower offices, Vlad preferred knights and free peasants to boyars. In his aim of cleaning up Wallachia Vlad gave new laws punishing thieves and robbers. Vlad treated the boyars with the same harshness, because they were guilty of weakening Wallachia through their internal struggles for power. The older boyars and their families were immediately impaled. The younger and healthier nobles and their families were marched north to the ruins of Poienari Castle in the mountains above the Arges River. Vlad was determined to rebuild this ancient fortress as his own stronghold and refuge so he might monitor the movements of the Hungarians coming through Transylvania and the Turks of the Ottoman Empire. The enslaved boyars, their families and some master masons were forced to labor until their deaths, rebuilding the old castle with materials from another nearby ruin. According to tradition, they labored until the clothes fell off their bodies and then were forced to continue working naked. None survived the construction of castle Poienari, as those who did not die from exhaustion were impaled. This cruel policy was bound to backfire in the future but for the time being it seemed to be a right thing to do.

In 1459, Pope Pius II called for a new crusade against the Ottomans. The only European leader that showed enthusiasm for the crusade was Vlad of Wallachia. Later that year, in 1459, Mehmed sent envoys to Vlad urging him to pay a delayed tribute. The sultan had every right to demand it as he supported Vlad earlier but the prince refused to pay 10,000 ducats and send 500 recruits into the Ottoman forces. In order to provoke and instigate war with the Sultan Vlad, who knew Muslim culture very well, demanded the Turkish envoys raise their “hats” to him and, when they refused for religious reasons, he killed them by nailing their turbans to their heads. Subsequently, the Ottomans attempted to remove him - the Turks crossed the Danube and started to do their own recruiting by force of adolescent Romanians into the Janissary. Vlad allied himself with Matthias Corvinus , son of John Hunyadi (János Hunyadi), the King of Hungary, his former enemy. In the winter of 1462, Vlad crossed the Danube and devastated the entire Bulgarian land in the area between Serbia and the Black Sea. Disguising himself as a Turkish Sipahi, he infiltrated and destroyed Ottoman camps. In a letter to the Hungarian king, Corvinus dated 2 February he wrote:

I have killed peasants men and women, old and young, who lived at Oblucitza and Novoselo, where the Danube flows into the sea, up to Rahova, which is located near Chilia, from the lower Danube up to such places as Samovit and Ghighen. We killed 23,884 Bulgars without counting those whom we burned in homes or the Turks whose heads were cut by our soldiers...Thus, your highness, you must know that I have broken the peace with him (Sultan Mehmet II)

In response to this, Sultan Mehmed II raised an army of around 60,000 troops and 30,000 irregulars and in 1462 headed towards Wallachia. Commanding only 40,000 men, Vlad was unable to stop the Ottomans from entering Wallachia and occupying the capital Târgoviste but he never stopped guerrilla attacks and ambushes on the Turks, such as The Night Attack when 15,000 enemies were killed. The strategy proved to be very successful. Vlad III defeated Ottoman Sipahi commanders such as Iosuf Bey, Turkhanbeyoglu Omer Bey and Evrenos Bey. This instigated Mehmed II, who then crossed the Danube.

Poenari Castle today
Vlad III's younger renegate brother, the highly capable Radu Bey and his Janissary battalions, were given the task of leading the Ottoman Empire to victory at all expense by Sultan Mehmet II. After the Sipahis incursions failed to subdue Vlad, the few remaining Sipahis were killed in a night raid by Vlad III in 1462, killing possibly 4,000 of Radu's troops. However the war raged on, Radu and his formidable Janissary battalion was well supplied with a steady flow of gunpowder and money, this advantage allowed them to push deeper into the realm of Vlad III. Radu and his well equipped forces finally besieged and captured Poenari Castle the famed lair of his brother.

With the siege of this castle comes the first mention of Vlad's first wife who, according to local legend, was a noblewoman of unknown name and origin. She died during the siege. Allegedly a woodland archer, having seen the shadow of Vlad's wife behind a window, shot an arrow through the window with a message warning her that Radu's army was approaching. Some historians (McNally and Florescu) explain that the archer was most probably one of Vlad's relatives who sent the warning out of loyalty despite having converted to Islam and served in the ranks of Radu Bey - it was kindness, not a threat. Upon reading the message, however, Vlad's wife threw herself from the tower into a tributary of the Arges River flowing below the castle, saying she would rather rot and be eaten by the fish of the Arges than be led into captivity by the Turks. A total pessimist but she was right - the castle was taken by the Turks. Today, the tributary is called "the Lady's River".

After his difficult victory Radu was then given the title Bey of Wallachia. Vlad III was defeated because the Boyars had been alienated by Vlad's policy and disliked him as he was undermining their authority, and weakening their control over Wallachia. They joined Radu and believed that Ottoman protection was better than Hungarian occupation. Others had their families contained by the Ottomans and thus also sided with Radu in order to reunite with their loved ones. Until 8 September, Vlad obtained another three victories but continuous war had left him without any money and he could no longer pay his mercenaries. Vlad travelled to Hungary to ask for help from his former ally, Matthias Corvinus. But instead of receiving help he found himself arrested and thrown into the dungeon for high treason.

Matthias Corvinus feared that Vlad III and his forces might devastate the rural countryside of Hungary and instigate an Ottoman invasion. The king was also jealous of Vlad’s military successes, although they didn’t cost him a lot; after all he was also supposed to fight with the Turks but so far all the dirty work had been done by Dracula and his men. The exact length of Vlad's period of captivity is open to some debate, though indications are that it was from 1462 until 1474. Diplomatic correspondence from Buda seems to indicate that the period of Vlad's effective confinement was relatively short. Radu's openly pro-Ottoman policy as voivode probably contributed to Vlad's rehabilitation. Gradually winning back King Matthias's favour, he married Ilona Szilágyi, a cousin of the king, and in the years before his final release in 1474, lived with her in a house in the Hungarian capital. Around 1465, Ilona bore him two sons: the elder, Vlad IV Dracula, spent most of his time in the king's retinue and later was an unsuccessful claimant to the Wallachian throne. The younger, whose name is unknown, lived with the Bishop of Oradea in Transylvania until 1482.

On 26 November 1476, Vlad III declared his third reign and began preparations for the reconquest of Wallachia. In 1476, with Hungarian support, he invaded the country crossing the river Danube. It was a short campaign - it lasted little more than two months - Vlad was killed on the battlefield, during a fierce confrontation with the Ottoman Sipahis near Bucharest in 1476. Vlad III was buried in the Snagov monastery, and his head is believed to be in Istanbul. The Sultan finally got his tribute of a kind.

King Matthias Corvinus
After the death of Vlad the fame of his cruelty spread in the form of a pamphlet which tone was seriously exaggerated. The whole thing was promoted by none other than Matthias Corvinus, the king of Hungary. You can ask why a former ally would do such a thing to his dead protégé and it is a very good question. Apparently Matthias tarnished Vlad’s reputation and credibility for a political reason: as an explanation for why he had not helped Vlad fight the Ottomans in 1462, for which purpose he had received (and embezzled) money from most Catholic states in Europe. His smear campaign once again was very successful – to these days in the West, Vlad III has been characterized as a tyrant who took sadistic pleasure in torturing and killing his own people. According to the German stories the number of victims he had tortured and murdered was at least 80,000 - he allegedly had whole villages and fortresses destroyed and burned to the ground. These numbers are most likely exaggerated as all his life Vlad wanted to rebuild his country, not ruin it.

Two tragic stories full of cruelty and blood but devoid of any vampiric traits - next time I am going to improve that. In the final installment, most likely published next week, I will try to find out why these false legends and accusations proved to be so popular and how the vampires and werewolves are presented in popular culture nowadays. There will be also a paragraph or two about real illnesses which might make people look like vampires and/or werewolves.
 
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlad_III_the_Impaler
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Bathory

Enhanced by Zemanta

Friday, 4 March 2011

Silent Saturday


Thursday, 3 March 2011

Review: The Ghost by Robert Harris

  • Hardcover: 352 pages
  • Publisher: Simon & Schuster; 1 edition (October 23, 2007)
  • Language: English
  • ISBN-10: 1416551816
  • ISBN-13: 978-1416551812
  • Reading group: adult
  • Genre: political thriller

Synopsis:

The narrator, an intelligent, acerbic and single ghostwriter, is the perfect guy to do a high-stakes job on short notice. In order to recover from breaking up with his latest girlfriend and also for pecuniary reasons he decides to step into the shoes of his colleague named Michael James McAra. McAra had a nasty accident - he fell off the Martha’s Vineyard ferry and drowned while he had been trying to make the memoir of a former British prime minister, Adam Lang, publishable. Adam Lang sounds and looks suspiciously like Tony Blair, the real British ex-prime minister. He and his wife are currently living on a wintry Cape Cod, at the luxurious American estate of their billionaire publisher, where Lang is supposed to finish, with some little help, his “autobiography”. The death of his first “ghost” is just a minor obstacle. Like a true politician Lang won’t cancel the contract and refund his advance - the deal was made in this politician’s heyday and he fully knows he is worth less money now that he’s over the hill.

The new ghostwriter finds the deadline really terrifying and, after all, he is supposed to produce "the first full inside scoop by a leader on the west's war on terror". More accustomed to fabricating the memoirs of addled pop stars and inarticulate footballers, our narrator wants to "put some heart" into the leaden first draft left behind. When the rewrite begins, he meets other residents of the estate - Lang’s strangely embittered, restless wife and his slinky personal assistant, an overly devoted woman, who is also Lang’s more or less overt mistress. Soon the situation gets even more complicated and tense. Lang is to be investigated by the international criminal court on charges of war crimes, possibly even of crimes against humanity. When he was in power four British civilians were detained on suspicion of terrorist intentions and handed over to the Americans for interrogation, which meant nothing less than torture. Richard Rycart, an estranged former foreign secretary, has a letter signed by Lang that appears to authorize that arrests. The publisher shortens the deadline, which was already very demanding at the beginning. To make things even more complicated the ghostwriter finds out that some ruthless, faceless powers are after the unlovely manuscript. Perhaps his colleague's drowning wasn't an accident after all. What will happen to him and to his client ? Will he be able to finish his job satisfactorily?

What I liked:

“The Ghost” is very good - intelligent, perceptive and fun - as long as it is able to sustain its tone of witty tartness.

The first part I found to be the best – here’s the example why. The unnamed narrator cynically criticizes some former clients while praising his faithful super-slim laptop: “We had endured rock stars who believed themselves messiahs with a mission to save the planet. We had survived footballers whose monosyllabic grunts would make a silverback gorilla sound as if he were reciting Shakespeare. We had put up with soon-to-be-forgotten actors who had egos the size of a Roman emperor’s, and entourages to match.” How not to love him instantly?

Also citing a real handbook on ghostwriting by Andrew Crofts was a very good move - some tricks of the trade were really entertaining and they added a touch of professionalism and reality to the story. Not to mention the fact that I fully agree with  the author's  scolding of the publishing business for creating and coddling hack memoirists.

Finally the sensational core of the plot - the great revelation, and the crucial twist in the tail of it – is an accusation no one could make or take literally. The Ghost is, not about Blair; though of course it remains an indictment of everything he did and stood for. I think it is mainly a novel about the traps and snares that wait for everybody who craves power. To cite a sentence from another Harris’s novel, “Imperium”, “power brings a man many luxuries but a clean pair of hands is seldom among them." How very true.

One more remark : readers should be warned not to read the last pages of the book before they work their way there naturally because Harris has saved a little surprise for them  at the very end. In my opinion the last paragraph of the book nearly redeemed most of the faults by the way.

What I didn’t like:

It’s a pity that “The Ghost” loses its entertaining factor in the second, more action-packed part. The book degenerates swiftly into a commonplace “airport” mystery – a novel that its protagonist might have held in contempt when his safety and professional detachment were still there. By introducing special forces, spies and a shadowy evil corporate entity “The Ghost”, I must admit, underwent a complete sea change from its promising early pages. It seems a good ghostwriter would be needed here.

Final verdict:

This is a quick, effortless read: good vacation novel but not quite as riveting as I'd expect. If you want to read a good Harris book, try “Imperium”, reviewed by me here.

Wednesday, 2 March 2011

Wishful Wednesday, 2 March

The meme is hosted by Brooke from Brooke Bluestocking Guide.



 Welcome to Wishful Wednesday! 
This week I wish for an unusually tasty memoir:


 Let Me Eat Cake: A Celebration of Flour, Sugar, Butter, Eggs, Vanilla, Baking Powder, and a Pinch of Salt by Leslie F. Miller

From Booklist:

American cooks, especially beginners, love to bake cakes. The seemingly magical transformation of flour, sugar, butter, and eggs into a fluffy, sweet, visually arresting, audience-pleasing product perfectly exemplifies why so many pursue either an amateur or professional career in pastry making. Miller confesses to a lifelong obsession with cake baking. She delves into her Jewish grandmother’s recipe files for inspiration and for encouragement. Traveling the country, she finds other bakers who share her obsession. She probes for the secrets of such celebrated bakeries as Charm City Cakes. Miller inventories classic American cakes from all over the nation: the South’s red velvet cake, St. Louis’ gooey butter cake, Alabama’s Lane cake, Maryland’s ten-layer cake, and more. Miller’s highly personal approach means that the reader shouldn’t assume that every recipe is meant to be literally followed, for the recipes are often exemplars, lacking essential information but impressive nonetheless. --Mark Knoblauch 

Tuck in!

A chocolate cake decorated with icing, strawbe...Image via Wikipedia
Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, 1 March 2011

The winner of my first Swarovski giveaway

The first of March - it's time to announce the winner of my first Swarovski giveaway. No, it is not a cat. ;)
Let me remind that this time  a spring-coloured pair of earrings, shown below, was up for grabs; it was designed and made by yours truly.




Every entry was alloted a number  in the following order:
  • The Red Witch - 1
  • Brooke from the Brooke Bluestoking Guide - 2
  • Melissa (Books and Things) - 3
  • Demitria - 4
  • Judy - 5

The winner was selected using the service of RANDOM.ORG site and the winning number is 
3



 Melissa (Books and Things) - I hope you will like your new jewellery ! You've already been notified of your victory - please answer my e-mail so I can send you the earrings asap!

Thank you for participating, everyone! Of course I wish I had five pairs of earrings - one for every  fabulous contestant. Choosing just one person was more difficult than I thought :( 

However I think it is not the last Swarovski giveaway this year! After all spring is coming!
IMG_5942Image by toby lam2010 via Flickr
Enhanced by Zemanta