Journal 1 - Ghosts, Deer, and Dogs

 

8/30/2000

Elliot O'Donnell


Elliott O’Donnell’s Great Ghost Stories ed. Harry Ludlom

[Note: collection of “true” ghost stories]

               Strange how so many of the tales concern jealous women killing their rivals or evil women committing some troubled or misdeed.  They are far more common then the stories with men doing such things.  Is this because the stories started with men or are being retold by men?  It is also interesting to see how these “true” tales have influenced Victorian writers.  Once can see the gem of an idea that might have sparked Dickens’ or another’s imagination.  The book is good because it veers away from the more famous places, dealing more with the ghost stories concerning the middle-class.

 

9/1/2000

Firebringer by David Clement Davies



[Note: novel about deer in prehistory]

               It seems that most animal books must always make man the enemy or the villain.  Howard and Jacques [Redwall] being the expectations.  What would the deer say if they knew men worshipped Herne?

               The strange deer in Chapter nine are like the rabbits in Watership Down.  Why is the chosen one always male in novels and movies?  There are very few exceptions and the exceptions must always be saved by men.  Women give birth to the chosen one but that is it unless the romantic lead.

               Why make Willow twin?  Peppa seems so non-existent.  Willow herself is not a very complex character.  Characters are very cardboard like.  No reason why Ronnock is so attractive for Willow and the love interest among the deer doesn’t quite work. 

               The novel is too episodic and too much like Watership Down.

               Also how come wolves and foxes are considered dangerous but the other predators are not.  Snorr’s control is too unrealistic especially when he attacks the non-deer.  Isn’t strange and disquieting that a seal talks to the fish it eats?  The line about animals not understanding men seems silly considering domesticated animals.

 

9/4/2000

The Plague Dogs by Richard Adams



[Note: this is a difficult book to read if you have dogs.  There is also a movie, and if Watership Down traumatized you, you might want to avoid it. ]

               I love the fact that A.R.S.E are the bad guys. [Note: animal testing company]

               The description of the newspaper is interesting, “ . . . indicted and vindicated all over the world, watchdog of liberty, cat’s cradle of white-collar  banality, ram’s horn of soft pornography, crocodile’s tear of current morals, gulf and maw of the  . . .(189-190).

               Description of an actress, “who some little time ago opened the building as effortlessly as her legs . . . “(190).            

               Newspaper men portrayed as stupid.  Take for instance the emphasis on a dog killing a man with a gun instead of the dog killing the sheep. They make it sound like the dog really shot the man. It is unclear why Ephraim doesn’t have the safety on gun.  Parts of the book seem coincidental.

               I like the explanation of dogs and cats in the dog version of Adam and Eve, “When the man was disgraced and told to go away, he was allowed to ask all the animals whether any of them would  come with him and share his fortune and his life.  There were only two who agreed to come, entirely of their own accord and they were the dog and the cat.  And ever since then, those two have been jealous of each other, and each is forever trying to make man choose which he likes best.  Every man prefers one or the other.” (161).

               The police drive a Jaguar?!

               The book also turns on journalism.  Driver does some good, but he also stirs up the people with little or no proof of his accusations.  He makes Rawof’s and Smitter’s place periallous.  They’re repeatedly desired by Driver who saves them from the men with the guns, but who also hinders they’re attempt to find home.  Driver is also not a good listeners as he missies Moss’s slip when she refers to her brother, nor does her thoroughly check out the background information.

               No mention of Wescott’s gun.

               The introduction to the parliamentary debates interrupts the flow of the novel.  Perhaps the periodic nature of some of the sections/chapters is made to resemble Smitter’s brain and how it jumps around.  At times, the narrative voice is very close and at other it recedes.  The narrator does help you bond to the dogs.  With the expectation of Smitter’s master, the highly professional people (docs, reporters) are portrayed in unflattering lights.  The middle-class people, the Lancaster shire men are portrayed as the good men.  This is especially detailed because the characters are drawn from life.  Is this class conflict?  The dog hunt would have gone better without the newspaper men.

               Also A.R.S.E does not do serious medical research (cancer say) most of the experiments are shown  to be not only cruel but unnecessary..  This way Adams has all the readers on the dog’s side.  It legitimate medical research were occurring then the line would be more blurry.  Not sure how I feel about animal testing.

               The book shows the fine art of ass covering  in the ranks of A.R.S.E.   Additionally there is also commentary on the treatment of stray animals.  (Glad I gave that cat water).  Two reasons why the book has to be set in rural district: (1) sheep (2) lack of human contact.

               The beginning of the book, with  Tyson and Lancaster’s opinions in general about non-working animals explains the lack of soft feelings that some characters have over the course of the book.  [Note- this is like Joyce Stranger’s work as I would rather discover].  There is grief over losing a working animal, though.

               Driver recognizes  Moss’s cruelty but is more upset at being lied to.

               She  really is a cold hearted bitch!

               To Driver’s credit he does try to do the right thing.  He is not entirely bad.  He has a shade of grey.

               Poor Smitter.

               He does deal with Stephanie and so covers both sides of the issue.  Powell is kinder and has a better understanding of the situation than Boycott.

               Redemption of Driver is done via the dogs.

               Fairy tale like in telling.  Adams is showing difference between Read and Boycott.  It becomes a part moral fable at the end.  Whole book seems structured as a fable.

               I wish we were told if the farmers got paid for the killing of their sheep.  But I suppose that would ruin the happy ending.

               It is different than Watership Down, the narrator is more present and engages the reader at times.  At times the reading feels too distanced from the characters and the ending is almost too pat.

 


Comments