This was an interesting book to read. In some parts, it was incredibly slow, while in others, (notably the end) it was a veritable page turner that I couldn't put down.
The premise sounded promising enough for me to pick it up at the library. In World War II, a pair of British pilots are shot down over Germany and to survive, they steal the identities of two high ranking SS officers being sent to a mental institution deep in Germany. Once in the institution, they have to maintain their sanity while convincing the nurses and doctors of their insanity. Oh, and some of the other patients may also be faking insanity, for reasons not yet clear.
Sounds interesting doesn't it? I would add that to the read pile based on the description. (Which, obviously I did.)
And it did start off interesting. It was obvious that the author, Jussi Adler-Olsen, had done plenty of research. In fact, Adler-Olsen (in a note in the beginning of the book) said that his father was psychiatrist who worked in Danish mental hospitals in the 1950's. So he knows what he's talking about.
The "pilots getting shot down" part was pretty exciting, as was there attempts to evade the German patrols. Even the first few days in the mental hospital were edge of the seat type stuff as they struggled with their deception. One quickly realizes that a mental hospital is probably a great place to hide out, because basically anything goes. For example, only one of the pilots speaks German. That might be a problem in a regular hospital, because his blank, uncomprehending looks when spoken too by the doctors and nurses are exactly what is expected of someone with mental issues. Also, it's easier to explain the lack of physical ailments.
But then you run into the same problems as were covered in "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest." Pretending to be insane is pretty hard work. And that's when it starts getting slow. The book spends probably a third of the pages inside the heads of the two pilots. They can't speak and they can hardly move because they don't want to appear to able. So they just lay there. Nothing happens for a long time, but the author wants the reader to experience that time. It picks up a little because one of the pilots starts to suspect that others in the institution are faking as well. So there's this weird cat and mouse game where the two groups are trying to force the others to do something that will prove to the hospital administrators that they're not insane, but do it in a way that they don't also implicate themselves.
It was at this stage that I was close to putting the book down for good. I could only read a few pages at a time, and then I'd get depressed looking at how many pages I had left. I'm glad I stuck with it though, because one of the pilots manages to escape. At this point, the book jumps 30 years (I don't remember exactly, but it was something like that) into the future. This pilot is now a wealthy doctor, but is haunted by the fate of his friend and co-pilot, who he had to leave in the hospital. A chance encounter with someone sparks a renewed interest and sets off a chain of events that reminded me a lot of the movie Serendipity.
I make that comparison because the author switches points of view to a bunch of the connected characters as their arcs slowly spiral together. As the omniscient reader you see how they all interact, but the characters keep missing slightly missing each other or meeting but not knowing it. At this stage the plot was moving pretty rapidly and it became something I couldn't put down. The only problem was that with all the character switching, it kind of became hard to keep track of who was who.
Apparently Adler-Olsen is well known for his "Department Q" series. Although this book wasn't a part of that group, it was good enough to make me want to see what those books are about. But it wasn't good enough that I'm going to run out tomorrow to find them.
Friday, April 29, 2016
Monday, April 18, 2016
The Barkley Marathons
It's not usual that I see something and doubt whether I could do it. Now, that doesn't mean that I could actually do it. But I usually at least think I could. The Barkely Marathon is not one of those things. Which of course makes me want to do it.
I'd seen this documentary on Netflix for a while and then someone I work with sent me a link to an article about the Barkley and said she immediately thought of me when she read it. The next day, another coworker stopped me in the hallway and said "Hey, I just watched this thing on Netflix and it totally looked like something you'd do. Have you heard of the Barkley Marathon?" It was then that I decided that I needed to watch the thing post haste. And then a few days after I watched it another coworker stopped me to tell me about this crazy documentary they just watched on Netflix...The Barkley Marathons.
And crazy it is. O.M.G is it crazy. In case you haven't heard of it and are wondering, the plural on "Marathon" is not an accident. This is not a single marathon. It's 5 marathons. In the mountains. Off trails. And racers have 60 hours to finish.
I thought the movie did a good job of showing the character of the race, the man that puts it on, and the people crazy enough to attempt it. One of the things that struck me while watching the runners was how absolutely selfish it all was. Now maybe this was a early attempt at making excuses for never actually doing this race myself, but I couldn't shake the thought. The guy that won the race the year the documentary was filmed was out there with his wife, mom, and young (toddler age) son. These people that care about about, and whom he likely cares about, were out in the woods for probably more than three days with him.
Being out in the woods for three plus days isn't the worst thing in the world you can ask your loved ones to do, but it's not like they were really on a vacation. Every time he completed a loop they hovered around him getting him food, clean clothes, and encouragement. And people can't use phones, so it's not like he can call and say "Hey honey, I should be back at camp in about 2 hours." It's not like it could be anytime, since he is running 20+ miles in the elements. Once he heads out you can assume he won't be back for a couple of hours. But it could be 10 hours, or 13, or 9. Personally, I'd hate to assume it was 10, but my loved one comes back in 9 and I'm not there to do the job I'm supposed to do. And then what about if there's an injury? Or he quits (as most people do) and comes back after only a few hours.
What I'm saying is it's not like you can say, "I'm going to head back to town for a bit, but I'm sure I'll be here when you need me." You're there the entire time, sitting on your hands waiting. And it's one thing if he eventually wins, since then you can at least say that it was worth it. But most people don't finish. The stat I heard is something like only 1% of all the people who have ever entered the race have finished.
Then there is everything that goes into this en-devour. There's the travel to and from the race, which is minor compared to the thousands of hours of training and preparation that go into something like this. And this guy had a toddler son. How much of that boys life did this guy miss because he had to train. It's not like it's a local 5k and you can knock out a 30 minute run early in the morning. You're running hours and hours each day. Sure, the kid can probably go with for some of that, either on a bike or a running stroller. But I doubt he could go for all of it, every time.
I know that I said in the first paragraph that this is something that I want to do, but I don't think I can ask my family to support me while I do it. Caveat: At this time. In a decade or so, my kids will be old enough that I can go for hours-long runs and they can take care of themselves. Who knows, maybe they'll even be running with me at that point. Wouldn't that be great? Sure, my body will be a decade older, but the Barkleys is not a race of speed. It's a race of endurance. Mental and physical. And a lot of times, those come with age. Or so I've heard.
I'd seen this documentary on Netflix for a while and then someone I work with sent me a link to an article about the Barkley and said she immediately thought of me when she read it. The next day, another coworker stopped me in the hallway and said "Hey, I just watched this thing on Netflix and it totally looked like something you'd do. Have you heard of the Barkley Marathon?" It was then that I decided that I needed to watch the thing post haste. And then a few days after I watched it another coworker stopped me to tell me about this crazy documentary they just watched on Netflix...The Barkley Marathons.
And crazy it is. O.M.G is it crazy. In case you haven't heard of it and are wondering, the plural on "Marathon" is not an accident. This is not a single marathon. It's 5 marathons. In the mountains. Off trails. And racers have 60 hours to finish.
I thought the movie did a good job of showing the character of the race, the man that puts it on, and the people crazy enough to attempt it. One of the things that struck me while watching the runners was how absolutely selfish it all was. Now maybe this was a early attempt at making excuses for never actually doing this race myself, but I couldn't shake the thought. The guy that won the race the year the documentary was filmed was out there with his wife, mom, and young (toddler age) son. These people that care about about, and whom he likely cares about, were out in the woods for probably more than three days with him.
Being out in the woods for three plus days isn't the worst thing in the world you can ask your loved ones to do, but it's not like they were really on a vacation. Every time he completed a loop they hovered around him getting him food, clean clothes, and encouragement. And people can't use phones, so it's not like he can call and say "Hey honey, I should be back at camp in about 2 hours." It's not like it could be anytime, since he is running 20+ miles in the elements. Once he heads out you can assume he won't be back for a couple of hours. But it could be 10 hours, or 13, or 9. Personally, I'd hate to assume it was 10, but my loved one comes back in 9 and I'm not there to do the job I'm supposed to do. And then what about if there's an injury? Or he quits (as most people do) and comes back after only a few hours.
What I'm saying is it's not like you can say, "I'm going to head back to town for a bit, but I'm sure I'll be here when you need me." You're there the entire time, sitting on your hands waiting. And it's one thing if he eventually wins, since then you can at least say that it was worth it. But most people don't finish. The stat I heard is something like only 1% of all the people who have ever entered the race have finished.
Then there is everything that goes into this en-devour. There's the travel to and from the race, which is minor compared to the thousands of hours of training and preparation that go into something like this. And this guy had a toddler son. How much of that boys life did this guy miss because he had to train. It's not like it's a local 5k and you can knock out a 30 minute run early in the morning. You're running hours and hours each day. Sure, the kid can probably go with for some of that, either on a bike or a running stroller. But I doubt he could go for all of it, every time.
I know that I said in the first paragraph that this is something that I want to do, but I don't think I can ask my family to support me while I do it. Caveat: At this time. In a decade or so, my kids will be old enough that I can go for hours-long runs and they can take care of themselves. Who knows, maybe they'll even be running with me at that point. Wouldn't that be great? Sure, my body will be a decade older, but the Barkleys is not a race of speed. It's a race of endurance. Mental and physical. And a lot of times, those come with age. Or so I've heard.
Sunday, April 3, 2016
Max (movie)
I watched this with the kids on our normal pizza and a movie night. It was a while ago and I'm just now getting around to this post about it so I'm not 100% on the details. But I know that the kids really liked it, mostly because it had a cool dog in it. And even though I probably wasn't the intended audience that the makers had in mind for the movie, I didn't think it was all that bad. My only problem with it was that I hated the parents.
The mom was okay, but had this "I'm doing the best thing for my kids but is actually only making it worse" kind of thing. It made her really annoying, but my true anger was saved for the dad. He was this ex-Marine tough guy but he was just so frustrating. He had his "favorite" son and was not subtle about expressing that. The only way he could have been less subtle was by literally saying "I like your brother more than you." And of course, for the sake of the plot, that "favorite" son is not the main character.
Beyond that though, the dad was just a dick. It was kind of implied that he was a racist. He was also mean. In the sequence that made me me realize I hated him, he almost shoots the dog because...wait. I probably need to give a brief plot summary because that'll be make it easier to explain the scene.
So the "favorite" son follows in his fathers footsteps and joins the Marines. He is serving as a dog handler in Afghanistan when his unit is attacked and he dies. The dog survives, but is so grief stricken that it that the Marines can't rehabilitate him so they give him to the family. The younger brother, initially portrayed as a slacker (more on that later), resists the responsibility of caring for the dog, but eventually the two help each other and save the day. Also, the older son's best friend (who joined the Marines with him and was in the attack) was actually smuggling guns out of Afghanistan to sell illegally and may have actually been the one that killed the older brother. So the dog doesn't like him.
Anyways, the friend is home on "leave" and gets a job working at the dad's self storage business. The dad asked him what happened to his son, and the friend tells him that the dog freaked out in the firefight, turned on him, and killed him. The dad's like, "sure that makes sense", and he goes home and tries to shoot the dog but is stopped by his other son who now likes the dog.
Let's take a second to think about that. If the dog really did kill his handler, do you think the Marines would just give the dog to the family of the guy the dog just killed? Not only would that be a huge liability for them if the dog attacked someone else, but they wouldn't have spent all the money bringing the dog back from Afghanistan. They would have just killed him there.
Also, if it were all true and this is a killer dog, how could you let your son convince you not to kill it then? (Well, maybe not then then, but give it back to the Marines or have a vet put it down.) Sure your son likes the dog and he would be totally bummed, but he's 15 years old. He doesn't get to make those decisions, especially when he's not objective about it. Your job as the father is to make those tough decisions. But I bet if the dad had called a family meeting and told them what he knew, instead of just pointing a gun at the dog like a crazy person, then they might have even agreed that he needed to be put down.
As it happened though, the dad is getting ready to shoot the dog that killed his son (the war dog trained to fight by the Marines I remind you) but his son says "no Dad! I love him" (paraphrased), and the dad says "fine, but don't let him in the house." What?!?!
Anyway, that, plus the racist stuff, plus just generally bad parenting decisions by the dad really took me out of the movie. But that stuff was over the heads of the intended audience as both my boys really liked "the dog movie."
The mom was okay, but had this "I'm doing the best thing for my kids but is actually only making it worse" kind of thing. It made her really annoying, but my true anger was saved for the dad. He was this ex-Marine tough guy but he was just so frustrating. He had his "favorite" son and was not subtle about expressing that. The only way he could have been less subtle was by literally saying "I like your brother more than you." And of course, for the sake of the plot, that "favorite" son is not the main character.
Beyond that though, the dad was just a dick. It was kind of implied that he was a racist. He was also mean. In the sequence that made me me realize I hated him, he almost shoots the dog because...wait. I probably need to give a brief plot summary because that'll be make it easier to explain the scene.
So the "favorite" son follows in his fathers footsteps and joins the Marines. He is serving as a dog handler in Afghanistan when his unit is attacked and he dies. The dog survives, but is so grief stricken that it that the Marines can't rehabilitate him so they give him to the family. The younger brother, initially portrayed as a slacker (more on that later), resists the responsibility of caring for the dog, but eventually the two help each other and save the day. Also, the older son's best friend (who joined the Marines with him and was in the attack) was actually smuggling guns out of Afghanistan to sell illegally and may have actually been the one that killed the older brother. So the dog doesn't like him.
Anyways, the friend is home on "leave" and gets a job working at the dad's self storage business. The dad asked him what happened to his son, and the friend tells him that the dog freaked out in the firefight, turned on him, and killed him. The dad's like, "sure that makes sense", and he goes home and tries to shoot the dog but is stopped by his other son who now likes the dog.
Let's take a second to think about that. If the dog really did kill his handler, do you think the Marines would just give the dog to the family of the guy the dog just killed? Not only would that be a huge liability for them if the dog attacked someone else, but they wouldn't have spent all the money bringing the dog back from Afghanistan. They would have just killed him there.
Also, if it were all true and this is a killer dog, how could you let your son convince you not to kill it then? (Well, maybe not then then, but give it back to the Marines or have a vet put it down.) Sure your son likes the dog and he would be totally bummed, but he's 15 years old. He doesn't get to make those decisions, especially when he's not objective about it. Your job as the father is to make those tough decisions. But I bet if the dad had called a family meeting and told them what he knew, instead of just pointing a gun at the dog like a crazy person, then they might have even agreed that he needed to be put down.
As it happened though, the dad is getting ready to shoot the dog that killed his son (the war dog trained to fight by the Marines I remind you) but his son says "no Dad! I love him" (paraphrased), and the dad says "fine, but don't let him in the house." What?!?!
Anyway, that, plus the racist stuff, plus just generally bad parenting decisions by the dad really took me out of the movie. But that stuff was over the heads of the intended audience as both my boys really liked "the dog movie."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)