Skip to main content

Dandelion Wine - Review

I originally read Ray Bradbury's Dandelion Wine when I was young, and found it really disappointing. I've just re-read it for the first time, and realised that I was entirely wrong in how I looked at it.

The trouble was that Bradbury's Something Wicked This Way Comes was (and is) one of my favourite books ever - and the edition of Dandelion Wine I own (the Corgi SF Collector's Library paperback with the crinkly purple cover) makes it sound like another Something Wicked. The tagline on the front says 'It was a fantastic summer of terror and wonder - a fantastic summer he would never forget...' I can imagine the young me thinking 'But this isn't right. It's not fantasy at all.' And it isn't.

At its most basic, Dandelion Wine is an affectionate portrait of a smallish US town in 1928, with a linking thread of a twelve-year-old boy. It's straightforward, sometimes a little mawkish, sometimes dramatic fiction. And it's Bradbury at his most poetic (something else the young reader probably didn't appreciate) - the lyricism is sometimes so strong it's almost as much a self-parody as John Sladek's breathtakingly sharp pastiche short story Joy Ride by 'Barry duBray.' (One of a set of evil take-offs including a story by 'Iclick As-I-move'.)

Reading it now, though, much older, I think there's something else to Dandelion Wine. It's almost a bookend piece to Something Wicked. Where that was a fantasy about being young and growing up, Dandelion Wine is often a book about growing old and dying, despite that young protagonist. Yes, it portrays beautifully being a pre-teen in a small town in the 20s, but age and death have a habit of dominating the scene. It's wonderfully structured as a set of vignettes - some as short as a single page, some making good length stories. And many of those stories are superb. I was particularly struck by the Helen Loomis segment. Not only did this make me come close to tears, it's strangely similar to the storyline of the movie Somewhere in Time, based on a Richard Matheson novel - with the ironic twist that the movie is a fantasy, usually Bradbury's speciality, where the Dandelion Wine version requires no magical time travel.

Bradbury's style won't work for everyone, but if you can cope with it, this is a wonderful book.

Dandelion Wine is available from amazon.co.uk and amazon.com
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you  
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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...
118 comments
Read more

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...
25 comments
Read more

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...
6 comments
Read more