Cowboys vs Aliens (spoilerish)

So, if you like Daniel Craig, you will enjoy this movie. It's a bit like Rango - if you like Johnny Depp, you will enjoy that movie. It is not as witty as Rango, the stereotypes scream out their stereotypiness (I am the good Indian/priest/whore sidekick, I will not survive this movie, frex) and it really lives up/down to its title. The title says it all. And there is lots of Daniel Craig, and I can tell you, he looks good in a hat. In a hat, on a tree, in an alien hideout, on a horse, by a house, by a stream, with the dog, with the kid, with the girl, Daniel Craig looks good. Harrison Ford not so much, but then, Harrison Ford has never pressed any of my buttons much. 

There is scarcely any dialogue, there is very little plot, there is basic characterisation and there is a lot of very satisfactory riding around beautiful parts of the American west, deserty bits and plainy bits and rocky bits. There are chases, explosions, battles and the cowboys have to make friends with the Indians to defeat the aliens. So hmmm, a little bit metaphorical there? The aliens are sticky and slimy and really unfriendly except for the hot alien (and nekkid) chick who comes from another planet and whose fellow aliens were previously toasted by these evil slimy sticky aliens who have extra slimy inside hands ready to emerge and grab you when you think you are safe tucked away in a rock or under a rock. But really, it is OK because James Bond and Indy Jones are there to defeat the slimy sticky aliens. Unless you are the Indian, the pastor or the prostitute. They are toast. 

So is this movie any good? Not really. Did I enjoy it? Yes, a whole heap. Would I watch it again? Yes. Like I am happy to watch Casion Royale (but not Quantum of Solace) because of Daniel Craig who takes craggy hotness to a whole new level. In a hat, by a dog, with a child, on a horse, off a horse, under the alien stronghold etc etc. 

Getting boys reading

Last week, a writer called Robert Lipsyte wrote about boys and reading in the NYT. I found it odd because Lipsyte was talking about how difficult it is to get boys to read. But I know a lot of boys who read. Maybe that's because I work in the kind of school where children come from families that read and my own family has its fair share of readers. But to answer Lipsyte's primary question, which was "is there hope for boys and reading?", I'd say absolutely. But the answer is the same as it has always been: boys will do better when there is a concrete home-school link of some sort and messages are consistent and constructive.

First of all, reading starts in the home and boys and girls have to be exposed to the idea that reading is a worthwhile, rewarding pursuit from the cradle. Yes, that means knowing the words of Where the Wild Things Are or Curious George or The Gruffalo by heart because you have read that book so many times to your pre-schooler. 

Then there is the phase where you are encouraging your child to read independently, between 4 and 8. When you have to listen to the exciting adventures of Biff and Kipper and Chip every night and encourage them to read first picture books and then cereal packets and instructions and recipes and comics and slightly more complex books. What works for one child won't work for another. Encyclopaedias and the Guinness Book of Records, bumper books of facts and Horrid Henry, Captain Underpants and Diary of a Wimpy Kid have all stimulated and engaged boys. Digestive systems and dinosaurs seem to be the key to encouraging reading at this stage, maybe with a side helping of Mummies, sharks or birds of prey.

From 8 to 12, there is a world of wonderful books to explore, classics such as the Narnia books and Lloyd Alexander's Chronicles of Prydain, the three wicked schoolboys, Jennings, Bunter and William, as well as modern classics - Harry Potter, Pullman, Philip Reeves, pretty much anything by Geraldine McCaughrean and Michael Morpurgo, the list is endless, it is just a question of ensuring that the school library is well-stocked, there is time in the school day to read and that parents are on-side to discuss books, listen to reading and ensure that some reading happens every day. 

Then we enter trickier territory, because from 12 onwards, there is increasing competition for any child's time quite apart from issues of hormonally-driven rebellion. But again, schools and parents can and should work together to encourage boys to read fiction and non-fiction - newspapers, specialist magazines, and yes, big fat books. Limit access to mobile phones and games consoles, connect computer or tv time to reading - 10 minutes with a book for 10 minutes of screen time. And no one under 18 should have a TV, computer or games console (including Playstations and Nintendo DS) in their rooms. I am not saying that these shouldn't be in the house at all, but a kid's room should be pared down in terms of technology. Frex, we have a TV room with DVD player and games console, the family computer is kept in the kitchen/dining room and handheld devices go into a designated basket in our bedroom for the night. Because I don't know about your kids, but given the chance and an iPhone, mine will both spend all night texting friends and playing pocket god/angry birds/lego mash up videos on Youtube. And I do mean all night. 

As for what to read post-12: fantasy books and classic books, sci-fi and war stuff, thrillers, westerns and comedy, graphic novels and novels with no pics at all. And what Lipsyte seems to be forgetting is that from around 12, kids don't have to read YA fiction. There is plenty of just good standard fiction out there. Bradbury and Asimov, Chandler and Hammett, Dickens, Tolstoy and Anthony Hope, Robert Louis Stevenson and Kafka, JG Ballard, CJ Sansom, Allingham, Sayers and Marsh, Robert Harris, Le Carre, PG Wodehouse, Michael Chabon and Glenn David Gold. Just to mention a few.

I started going through this at the beginning of the year with Minion No 1 who was then 13. We went into the Waterstones on Piccadilly, one of the largest bookstores in the world. We went to the children's section and he went over to the YA table and yes, it was predominantly paranormal female-slanted. There were honourable exceptions, e.g. Patrick Ness's magnificent trilogy and John Green's stuff. But on the whole, the YA world seems to be dominated by vampires (sparkly or otherwise), fairies, changelings and werewolves all tangled up with some fairy tale stuff - riffs on Little Red Riding Hood or Beauty and the Beast. MN1 was like, 'nah, like bleagh'. So we went to the Fiction section and he picked three books quite happily. And read them. 

This summer, he's worked his way through a couple of JG Ballards, All Quiet on the Western Front, Metamorphosis, some Waugh, a couple of Robert Harris books and some Hemingway. He also reads and rereads every issue of NME and Total Guitar he can lay his hands on. 

Is he average? I don't know. Is he a reader? Yes, he is. But he has parents who are readers, aunts, uncles and grandparents who are readers and who are always asking him that question - what are you reading just now? 

And the fundamental rules are: 

1) Let him choose what to read. 

2) No censorship: if a book is unduly graphic in terms of violence or sex, mention it and be ready to discuss the reasons why.  Because reading American Psycho is unlikely to turn him into Belgian Psycho but he may well need to process the themes of sadism and consumerism.

3) If he doesn't like it, he doesn't have to finish it. There are plenty more books out there, and it may be that he's not ready for that particular book. Reading should not be a chore.  

A Visit from the Goon Squad

There are 34 plugs for the brilliance of Goon Squad (title from Bowie's Fashion) on the UK edition. You know where this is going, don't you...

It is very readable: 13 intertwined stories, and no, that is not a new technique, think of La Ronde, going back over a century, or writers like Sterne going back a couple of hundred years. Goon Squad has been compared to Mitchell's Cloud Atlas, but I think that Mitchell is a more interesting and versatile writer. Egan has that eau de creative writing programme spritzed all over her style, which is pared down and has a sort of nod back to Hemingway in its laconic throw-away delivery, via the Carvers and Fords. It is not as irritating as that other disappointing Pulitzer Prize winner, The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao, which really jerked my chain, but it shares a kind of faux-hip ambience that probably seduced the Pulitzer judges that year.

So - plot: Look at where we've all ended up...and doesn't it pretty much suck because we've all sold out in one way or another.

Characters: Mainly Sasha Blake and Bennie Salazar and their friends/acquaintances. People connected with the music industry/PR with some academic types thrown in. 

Themes: how time gets us all in the end. 

Structure: 13 connected but disparate narratives deliberately jumbled up so sometimes we're in the 80s, 90s, 10s and then end up in maybe 2020. 

Narrative voice: sometimes first person, sometimes limited third, sometimes omniscient. 

I did not think it was that funny or wise or smart or magical. But it was entertaining and lively and erm, just not so deep as some reviewers seem to imply. I think people have assumed the book is deep because Jennifer Egan seems like a very deep person in her interviews, or alternatively, a touch pretentious, and she namechecks Proust in the epigraph and in her interviews. Proust is often like a magic blanket, because you chuck his name out there and we all know we should have read A La Recherche, but most of us haven't or, like me, have maybe dipped a toe in the Proustian well and enjoyed it but erm, are taking our time about getting our whole foot wet. So when a writer has really read Proust and been influenced by them, there's room for a little shock and awe. But in this case, Proust has nothing to fear. And all those reviewers who are feeling a little intimidated by Egan, well, the empress is wearing a very dainty thong. And not much else. 

Beastly (spoilers)

I didn't realise that there was a movie of this book until I tootled over to the author website, but there is, and it stars Alex Pettyfer who once ventured out as Alex Rider and remains a very pretty but slight actor, if the trailer is anything to go by (see below). It also has the charming Neil Patrick Harris, sadly not singing, dancing, but closer to his Dr Horrible persona than his Doogie Howser role.

Beastly is a modernisation of the Beauty and the Beast story told from the perspective of the Beast. It's a v. quick YA read, but little more than that. It's easy reading, but the characters were entering into cardboard territory and I felt the male narrator was unconvincing. Actually, he's totally utterly un-boylike. Yes, he's a nasty arrogant tw*t initially, but then he gets turned into a beast and starts reading books and bingo, he has become a sensitive rose-growing hunk of hairy wonderfulness whose favourite book is Jane Eyre. And of course, he is saved by True Love's Kiss. 

Now, I am a big fan of numerous fictional teenage males. I fell in love with Holden Caulfield when I was 12, and if my parents had confiscated my copy of Gone With the Wind, I'd simply fall back on my other re-read fave until they took Catcher in the Rye too. Other fictional teen males I've liked - Xander from Buffy, as well as the three geeks who try to be the Big Bad in season 6 but were generally outwitted and outsmarted, both Will Graysons (John Green and David Levithan), Chris and Sid from Skins, and now all four of the complete noodles in The Inbetweeners. The reason I like these particular teenagers is because they are plausible. They are vulnerable and crude and silly, obsessive, funny and exaggerated, certainly, but also, true. Unlike Adrian/Kyle of Beastly, who is more of a girl's wish-fulfilment, with some elements in common with Edward of Twilight including a slightly creepy tendency to watch his love object while she is unaware/asleep. 

Now, as a teacher who has taught Jane Eyre to adolescents of all genders, the whole bit where he fell for the romance in the book just didn't work for me. I've met boys who liked Jane Eyre because it has some horrible and exciting things happening in it, but Jane herself meh...and the whole Rochester/Jane thing, double-meh. So that didn't ring true. There were moments throughout when my willing suspension of disbelief was challenged - the chat-group run by Mr Anderson in which we hear about the Littlest Mermaid, the Frog Prince and the bear who gets to marry Snow White from Snow White and Rose Red, frex. The exchanges just seemed to be filler. 

Fairy tales are meant to be numinous and archetypal, but Beastly was too prosaic to work for me.