I'm reading in black and white

I'm reading a book in black and white at the moment.

Before you conclude that I've finally cracked under the strain and gone to pieces, because pretty well all books are in black and white, let me explain. I love old movies. But it takes a certain amount of patience to enjoy them. As soon as my kids see that a film is in black and white they give up. Usually with a movie of that period you have to make some allowances. Take one of my favourite films, It's a Wonderful Life - it is, without doubt, a great (if schmalzy) movie, but, to be brutally honest it's a bit slow in places. And, well, a trifle clunky. But that doesn't matter, as long as you approach it the right way.

It's the same with this book, Gather Darkness by Fritz Leiber. It's a classic SF book, written in 1943. I can honestly say it doesn't feel as old as it is, but, yes, you do have to make allowances for the fact it's a 'black and white' book rather than a technicolor one.

One of these allowances that surprised me, in reading my 1979 edition, is just how rubbish the copy editing is. I keep seeing typos, some as blatant as substituting 'minds' for 'hands'. I suppose this is because a) it's a cheap NEL version and b) it was before the publishing process was so computerized. I know even now some mistakes slip through in every book, but not as many as this. (Incidentally, in typical NEL fashion of the period, the cover has nothing to do with the story.)

Then there's a certain allowance for creaky writing. Leiber is a reasonable wordsmith, but he ain't no Jane Austen. At one point he says 'The invisible music rose to an exalting climax...' - so you'd expect visible music, Mr Leiber? (What he means is the source of the music is invisible, but still.)

But that doesn't stop it being a gem of a book, with a sort of 'we know things you don't' plot I love. So we've got the world ruled by a scientific hierarchy using a fake religion with real 'miracles' driven by technology, but there's a growing 'witchcraft' underground movement that uses even better versions of the same technology to throw the hierarchy into chaos. (Hang on, did Philip Pullman read this before he wrote The Golden Compass? The witchcraft people even have 'daemons' of a sort. Hmm.)

I couldn't do it all the time, but just occasionally it's fun to make that little extra effort and read a book in black and white.

Comments

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense

Search This Blog