Lists

Picture of a book: The Secret Garden
Picture of a movie: Little Miss Sunshine
Picture of a movie: The Hundred-Foot Journey
Picture of a movie: Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close
Picture of a movie: The Secret Life of Walter Mitty
Picture of a movie: Forrest Gump
Picture of a movie: Amélie

6 Movies, 1 Book

these make me wanna live

Sort by:
Recent Desc

Inspired by this list

Picture of a book: Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
books

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

Roald Dahl
Tonight I just finished reading Charlie and the Chocolate factory with my son. This is the first chapter book I've read all the way through with him. And it was a ton of fun. First off, I'll admit that I love the movie. I grew up with it. (I'm talking about the Gene Wilder version, of course.)I'll even admit to liking the movie better than the book. Which is something that doesn't happen very often with me. That said, the book is really, really good. It held my four-year old's attention. It's silly, and it's fun. And it's DARK. For those of you who haven't read the book, let me underline this fact for you. Dahl takes pains to really detail the fact that Charlie and his family aren't just hungry and poor. They're destitute. Charlie sleeps on a mattress on the floor. In the winter they are cold, and they're starving to death. And if you think I'm exaggerating on that last point, I'm not. One of the chapters is titled: The Family Begins to Starve. But you know what? I like this book better because of that. It's not sanitized pablum written by committee to be inoffensive. It's the story of a little boy who is in a fucking awful situation, but he is still good and kind and polite and then something really nice happens to him. That's a trope I can get behind. Its it a good book to read with your kids? Absolutely. That said, allow me to tangent off and share my thoughts as a total bastard:If Willie Wonka actually hired workers and paid them a living wage, maybe Charlie Bucket wouldn't be starving to death in the first place. Follow me here. Wonka is effectively running a company where everyone is paid in scrip. The Oompa Loompas are paid, quite literally, in beans. Beans that I'm guessing he has the Oompa Loompas themselves growing in some huge underground cavern. Let's not even get into the ethical tarpit of the fact that Wonka uproots an entire indigenous culture and enslaves them. Let's just look at this from a raw numbers point of view. Pure economics. The Oompa Loompas work in the factory. They are not paid. They never leave the factory. That means they don't pay rent. They don't buy groceries. They don't go to the movies, or take taxis ,or buy clothes. But *everyone* buys Wonka's chocolate. That means that money goes into the factory, but it doesn't come back out into the town. As a result, the local economy is crap. And it's because of this that Charlie's dad can't get a decent job. What's more, it's because of this that his dad *loses* his shitty job, and his family is starving to death. Willie Wonka isn't a childlike magic maker. He's a billionaire corporate fuckwit. He's the candy equivalent of Monsanto. There's no government oversight there. Osha would never have approved that bullshit boiled sweet boat and chocolate river. No. Dude is untouchable. And don't tell me he isn't. That shit that goes on with the other kids? Nobody even *thinks* of suing him. None of the parents even *hint* at it. He probably owns half the judges in the state, and a handful of senators, too. He's a fucking supervillian. And I would paid serious money to see a story where Batman kicks his ass. *End Rant* In closing, let me share something that Oot said while I was reading him this book: "Dad, Willie Wonka is just a regular human, but he *is* a little bit of a wizard like you."
Picture of a book: White Fang
books

White Fang

Jack London
White Fang, Jack London White Fang is a novel by American author Jack London (1876–1916) — and the name of the book's eponymous character, a wild wolfdog. First serialized in Outing magazine, it was published in 1906. The story takes place in Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories, Canada, during the 1890s Klondike Gold Rush and details White Fang's journey to domestication. It is a companion novel (and a thematic mirror) to London's best-known work, The Call of the Wild, which is about a kidnapped, domesticated dog embracing his wild ancestry to survive and thrive in the wild. Much of White Fang is written from the viewpoint of the titular canine character, enabling London to explore how animals view their world and how they view humans. White Fang examines the violent world of wild animals and the equally violent world of humans. The book also explores complex themes including morality and redemption.تاریخ نخستین خوانش: سال 1974 میلادیعنوان: سپید دندان؛ نویسنده: جک لندن؛ مترجم: محمد قاصی؛ تهران، بنگاه مطبوعاتی صفیعلیشاه، 1332، در 221 ص؛ چاپ دوم: تهران، نیل، 1335، در 223 ص؛ چاپ دیگر: سازمامان کتابهای جیبی، 1340؛ در 207 ص؛ چاپ پنجم 1343؛ چاپ نهم: فرانکلین، 1354، در 258 ص؛ چاپ دیگر: هدایت، 1369، در 275 ص؛عنوان: سپید دندان؛ نویسنده: جک لندن؛ مترجم: شاپور رزم آزما؛ تهران، آرمان، ؟، در 256 ص؛ عنوان: سپید دندان؛ نویسنده: جک لندن؛ مترجم: محمد شاطرلو؛ تهران، دادجو، 1364، در 206 ص؛ چاپ دیگر: 1388، در 159 ص، شابک: 9789642621569؛ چاپ دیگر: تهران، راستی نو، پر پرواز، 1388، در 159 ص، شابک: 9789642646340؛ چاپ دیگر: تهران، یزدانیار، 1393؛ در 159 ص؛ شابک: 9786009184811؛عنوان: سپید دندان؛ نویسنده: جک لندن؛ مترجم: خسرو شایسته؛ تهران، سپیده، 1364؛ چاپ چهارم 1370، در 111 ص؛ عنوان: سپید دندان؛ نویسنده: جک لندن؛ مترجم: مژگان حائری؛ تهران، نهال نویدان، 1374؛ در 128 ص؛ عنوان: سپید دندان؛ نویسنده: جک لندن؛ مترجم: بهار اشراق؛ ویراستار: پریسا همایون روز؛ تهران، قدیانی، 1386؛ در 302 ص؛ شابک: 9789645361981؛ چاپ سوم 1394؛ با همان شابکعنوان: سپید دندان؛ نویسنده: جک لندن؛ مترجم: مهدی علوی؛ تهران، دبیر، اکباتان، 1389؛ در 112 ص؛ شابک: 9789642621743؛ عنوان: سپید دندان؛ نویسنده: جک لندن؛ مترجم: کیومرث پارسای؛ تهران، چلچله، 1392؛ در 226 ص؛ شابک: 9789648329438؛ عنوان: سپید دندان؛ نویسنده: جک لندن؛ مترجم: سیدرضا مرتضوی؛ تهران، آفرینگان، 1394؛ در 64 ص؛ شابک: 9786006753881؛دنباله ی کتاب آوای وحش است، داستان در جریان تب طلای کلوندایک رخ می‌دهد. جک لندن زندگی سگی را که خون گرگی دارد، دنبال می‌کند. ایشان در این رمان به مسائل اخلاقی و تقابل وحشی‌گری و تمدن انسانی می‌پردازند. ا. شربیانی
Picture of a book: Gulliver's Travels
books

Gulliver's Travels

Jonathan Swift
Let’s face it….\ \ Jonathan Swift was a snarky, snarky bitch. Gulliver’s Travels is like a giant pimp slap across the human race face and I am so glad I finally read this in a non-school, non-structured environment because I had a whole lot more fun with it this time around. Swift’s wit, insight and delivery are often, though not always, remarkable and he crams more well thought out jabs and toe-steppings in this slim 250 page novel than I would have thought possible in a work twice this long.   This is certainly a classic that I believe people should read and experience for themselves outside of any required scholarly endeavors because I think that many of the ills, injustices and idiocies that Swift addresses in this novel are still, unfortunately, very relevant today. While Swift is short on resolutions or ideas for improvement (one of my disappointments) he does a marvelous job of exposing the problems that he perceived as existing within the 18th Century world, most particularly England, and opening the door for a more expansive, popular discussion on these issues.Kudos for that, Mr Swift.  From a plot perspective, Gulliver’s Travels is a series of adventures by Lemuel Gulliver to various undiscovered, fictional worlds that act as a backdrop for Swift, through his main character/mouthpiece, to scathe, rebuke, poke fun at and/or question all manner of political, religious  and social institutions, philosophies and groups. Everything from blind adherence to political ideologies or religious dogma, to ideological intolerance, to arbitrary social divisions and even the non-practical aspects of the rampant scientific explorations so in vogue at the time. Few groups were spared from Swift's caustic lens and many of his attacks are vehement bordering on brutal. Good. That is how such a work should be IMHO.  Overall, I thought this was very worthwhile and many of Swift’s commentaries were piercing,  brilliant and exceptionally well done. Some of my personal favorites include:  ** Parodying the massive waste of energy and resources expended in political infighting in Great Britain between the Whigs and Tories by having the two Lilliputian political parties separated solely by the aesthetic choice between wearing high heels and low heels. I can only imagine how this parody played out among the MP of England at the time.  ** Making light of the tremendous importance placed on seemingly trivial differences in religious doctrine that often lead to the most acrimonious wars and civil strife by explaining that the genesis of a long and bloody war between rival factions of Lilliputians stems from a disagreement over where to crack eggs. One group break their eggs on the small end (Small Endians) and the other break their eggs on the large end (Big Endians). What I found most clever about this attack was the use of an ambiguous reference in each side's “holy book” that states, “all true believers break their eggs at the convenient end.” That is just about perfect satire Mr. Swift. ** A biting jab at traditions and customs that people cling to long after there is no practical reason to do so is eloquently made when Gulliver describes the Lilliputians custom of burying their dead head first. \ They bury their dead with their heads directly downwards, because they hold an opinion that in eleven thousand moons they are all to rise again, in which period the earth (which they conceive to be flat) will turn upside down, and by this means they shall, at their resurrection, be found ready standing on their feet. The learned among them confess the absurdity of this doctrine, but the practice still continues, in compliance to the vulgar. \ When Swift is on his game, he is very, very effective.** A wonderful anti-war statement is made through the horror and disgust with which the King of the giant Brobdingnagians (their size depicted as representing moral superiority) reacts to Gulliver’s description of gunpowder and his offer to teach the Brobdingnagians the formula for producing it: \ I told him of ‘an invention, discovered between three and four hundred years ago, to make a certain powder…[t]hat a proper quantity of this powder…would drive a ball of iron or lead, with such violence and speed, as nothing was able to sustain its force. That the largest balls thus discharged, would not only destroy whole ranks of an army at once, but batter the strongest walls to the ground, sink down ships, with a thousand men in each, to the bottom of the sea, and when linked together by a chain, would cut through masts and rigging, divide hundreds of bodies in the middle, and lay all waste before them. That we often put this powder into large hollow balls of iron, and discharged them by an engine into some city we were besieging, which would rip up the pavements, tear the houses to pieces, burst and throw splinters on every side, dashing out the brains of all who came near…...The king was struck with horror at the description I had given of those terrible engines, and the proposal I had made. ‘He was amazed, how so impotent and groveling an insect as I…could entertain such inhuman ideas, and in so familiar a manner, as to appear wholly unmoved at all the scenes of blood and desolation which I had painted as the common effects of those destructive machines; whereof,’ he said, ‘some evil genius, enemy to mankind, must have been the first contriver.’ As for himself, he protested, that although few things delighted him so much as new discoveries in art or in nature, yet he would rather lose half his kingdom, than be privy to such a secret; which he commanded me, as I valued any life, never to mention any more.\ Sorry for the long quote, but I thought that was a particularly moving passage. ** My personal favorite (purely from an enjoyment standpoint) is the depiction of the scientifically adept and common-senseless Laputans  who exemplify Swift’s serious gripe against scientific research that doesn’t have a practical and foreseeable benefit to society. \ The first man I saw was of a meagre aspect, with sooty hands and face…[H]e has been eight years upon a project for extracting sunbeams out of cucumbers, which were to be put in phials hermetically sealed, and let out to warm the air in raw inclement summers. He told me, he did not doubt, that, in eight years more, he should be able to supply the governor’s gardens with sunshine, at a reasonable rate….\ Gulliver’s exploration of the scientific academy of Laputa was my favorite part of the novel and I thought Swift’s satiric chops were at there sharpest in relaying the societal dysfunction of the Laputans.  Now I must drop some ice in the bath water. As much as there was to enjoy in this work, I was not as blown away by it as I would have liked to have been. For one thing, I thought that Swift’s prose was merely serviceable and I didn’t find much in the way of eloquence in his delivery. It was missing the ear-pleasing lyrical quality that I have come to expect when reading classic literature. The writing wasn’t bad by any means but it wasn’t as enjoyable or memorable as I had hoped. This may be an unfair critique given that this book’s legacy lies with its content, but the lack of beautiful prose kept me from being able to enjoy the interludes and non-meaty passages of the work.    Also, some of Swift’s critiques fell a bit flat and didn't resonate with me as much as those mentioned above. For instance, the recasting of famous historical figures like Alexander, Hannibal and Caesar as being more subject to the moral frailties of the human animal than the established texts would have us believe. Swift uses this as the springboard to discuss the less than wholesome practices of securing political power today and that is a good thing. I just found the use of the legends of antiquity unnecessary and not particularly effective. That’s probably a personal bias of mine as I have always found those figures fascinating to read about.    Here's my biggest problem. One of the principal arguments that Swift makes in his novel is that balance and moderation are the keys to success both individually and as a people. Extremes of behavior and belief are the seeds from which disastrous consequences are born, according to Swift. That’s easy to say and it has an attractive ring to it, but I wish Swift had done a little more with it. This walkmy right into my biggest complaint about the story…the ending. I thought that the ambiguity of Gulliver’s condition at the end of the novel was a bit of a cop out. It appears as though the reader is left to determine whether Gulliver was (1) a man disgusted with humanity as a result of his exposure to the morally righteous and logically rational Houyhnhnm or (2) a man whose ill-conceived and intemperate worship of, and infatuation with the Houyhnhnm made him just another unbalanced yahoo whose loss of perspective and left him deranged.   Part of the answer of this would stem from determining whether Swift was holding up the Houyhnhnms as a model to follow or whether their own passionless adherence to logic was itself a subject of parody. However, as with the end, I think Swift was less than certain of his position (or of the position he wanted to state) and thus left too much ambiguity to the reader. Now I understand that often these kinds of soft endings are perfect as they allow the reader to interpret the work for themselves. However, here where Swift has been bludgeoning the reader with his opinions throughout the entire work, to suddenly punt and not clearly express a case for his protagonist seems to be a miss. That said, I am the first to acknowledge that it is anywhere from a distinct possibility to a metaphysical certainty that the “miss” here is on my part, but that was how I saw it. I wanted Swift to wrap up and summarize the effect of the journey on Gulliver and provide a statement about what should be drawn from his experience so that a better road could be paved for using his travels to address the problems on which it shined its light.   3.0 to 3.5 stars. Still…HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!!
Picture of a book: Mujercitas
books

Mujercitas

"Mujercitas" (en ingl�s, Little Women o Little Women or Meg, Jo, Beth and Amy) es una novela de la escritora estadounidense Louisa May Alcott publicada el 30 de septiembre de 1868, que trata la vida de cuatro ni�as que, tras pasar la adolescencia con la Guerra Civil en los Estados Unidos como fondo, entre 1861 y 1865, se convierten en mujeres. Est� basada en las vivencias de la autora durante su ni�ez en la ciudad de Concord, Massachusetts. Esta obra reproduce, tanto en su estructura como en su tema, la conocida novela aleg�rica de John Bunyan El progreso del peregrino, y de ah� que muchos de los t�tulos de los cap�tulos sean alusiones directas a esta obra (Juego de los peregrinos; Cargas; Beth encuentra el Palacio Hermoso; El valle de la humillaci�n de Amy; Jo conoce a Apoli�n; Meg visita la Feria de las Vanidades; entre otros). A la vez, cada una de las muchachas March est� destinada a caracterizar y superar estos defectos. De ah� que pueda ser considerada una novela de crecimiento o evoluci�n personal, as� como una reflexi�n temprana sobre los roles de g�nero. En la novela, las chicas traban amistad con un vecino, el joven adolescente Laurie, que se vuelve el mejor amigo de Jo. As� como los temas m�s serios y tristes, el libro describe las actividades de las hermanas y su amigo, como crear un peri�dico y realizar un p�cnic, y los roces por los que pasan Jo y Laurie. Tambi�n se plantea que las hermanas, cada una a su manera, pasan por todo el camino de los peregrinos, en su ruta a la adultez. La entretenida obra muestra el contexto hist�rico de la �poca.
Picture of a book: The Adventures of Tom Sawyer
books

The Adventures of Tom Sawyer

Mark Twain
I was five and a half years old when my mother gave me The Adventures of Tom Sawyer as a New Year's gift (she is a literature teacher, and I have been reading novels since the tender age of four or so, and so it seemed appropriate).Being a diligent and serious¹ child (neither of those qualities have stuck with me, unfortunately), I opened it to page 1 and started reading. I even took it with me to kindergarten, where other kids were learning letters and I was mercifully allowed to read hefty tomes, having obviously achieved full literacy by that point.¹ \ Me (age 5) and Mom. The diligent seriousness is *all over* this picture. This book initially left me quite confused, but I was undeterred - after all, the world was a confusing place, full of adults and rules and great books - even those without pictures. (And I was very proud to own books without pictures, after all). But his one was just too strange - its beginning did not quite fit with the rest of the quite fun story - it was odd and dry and incomprehensible for the first 40 pages or so, and it even was about some other guy (Samuel Clemens?) who was not Tom Sawyer.A few years later I reread my early childhood favorite (I probably reached a ripe old age of eight or so, still diligent but a bit less serious already). It was then that I figured out what seemed strange about the beginning of this book when I was five.You see, I diligently slogged my way through the most boring academic foreword, assuming that was the first chapter. What amazes me that I managed to stay awake through it. Good job, five-year-old me! Excellent preparation for that painfully boring biochemistry course a couple of decades later!After that foreword, slogging through any classic was a comparative breeze. Yes, I'm looking at you, War and Peace! You know what you did, you endless tome.Also, as it turns out, when you include two characters named Joe in one book (Injun Joe and Tom's classmate Joe Harper) that can cause a certain amount of confusion to a five-year-old who assumes they have to be the same person and struggles really hard to reconcile their seemingly conflicting characters. And, as a side note, I have always been disappointed at Tom Sawyer tricking his friends to do the infamous fence whitewashing. A *real* kid knows after all that painting stuff is fun. Five-year-old me was a bit disapproving of the silliness. I have told bits and pieces of this book to my friends on the playground, while dangling from the monkey bars or building sandcastles (in a sandbox, that in retrospect I suspect was used by the neighborhood stray cats as a litterbox - but I guess you have to develop immunity to germs somehow). We may have planned an escape to an island in a true Tom Sawyer fashion, but the idea fizzled. After all, we did not have an island nearby, which was a problem. Also, we may have got distracted by the afternoon cartoons.Someday, I just may have to leave this book within a reach of my future hypothetical daughter - as long as I make sure it does not come with a long-winded boring introduction.