Why is Prague so special?

There was a period when I hated Prague. Whenever anybody visited me, I had to go toPrague! I had to show them Prague! People applying for jobs were eager to work in Prague! (I live far away from Prague: those CVs went directly into the trashcan on my screen.)

I did the Walk: the long trek from the statue of King Wenceslaus at the head of Wenceslaus Square

to the Old Town Square

to the fifteeth century Charles Bridge

and up the long hill to the castle

where we enjoyed the view.

ON the way, all I could see was the souvenir shops.

Dangling keychains or Tshirt with slogans like: I got laid in Prague! BohemianRhapsody! (on a t-shirt with Mozart's head) or simply Prague! on a coffee mug with Bart Simpson serenely and inexplicably cruising on a Skateboard. Or Russian crap: those Russian dolls that have little dolls inside them and other little dolls inside them; or gaudy, ugly Russian crystal hoping to get yankee dollar for “genuine Czech crystal”.

What the fuck do Matruska dolls or Bart Simpson have to do with the Czech Republic, I wondered? It was all so garish. So cheesy. So obviously designed to rip suckers off. Who spends money at these places? I wondered.

(My question was answered when my brother-in-law stepped into a souvenir shop and bought a Chinese-wrought Garfield doll for his toddler son.)

And so crowded. Jesus. You see beautiful pictures of Prague but they usually don’t show you the hordes of people ambling along, stuffing down their throats steaming trdelniks with ice cream (prounounced Turd-EL-neeks with eiskreem, but tastier than they sound) and jabbering away at each other in every single language in the world — except Czech, of course.

Yes, it’s got interesting buildings, from Gothic, to Baroque to Hapsburg to Bauhaus to ugly-yet-powerful Communist/Brutalist, to — oh, whatever.

It didn’t help that I associated Prague with bureaucracy of the Embassy or long train rides (you can get there in 4 hours by train from where I am, but if you leave at night for a 7.30 flight from Vaclav Havel Airport, it can take up to 9 miserable hours with a two-hour layover in Hranice na Moravě. Which, you know, actually has its small-town Moravian charm…but not at the train station and not at 2:17 in the morning when you’ve been up all day and are facing a 20 hour journey by plane, train and automobile.)

But then something happened.

I was in Prague with my girlfriend on a business trip in early January 2014. There were hardly any tourists. I couldn’t believe it.

I walked across Charles Bridge one evening, a bridge I usually try to push across as quickly and forcefully as possible due to the oppressive press of the crowds. This time, with only handful of tourists present, I was able to stop and examine each statue…the gold paint…the sculpted faces…the view of the city behind…the Vltava below. The hum of city life vague in the background. Unamplified din in of a jazz quartet creeping tinnily from some cafe somewhere on the other side of the River.

It was about -10 degrees Celsius, cold. Jana and I walked arm and arm and the snow was lisping down. The lights gleamed, everything glittered with frost and the snow cast a certain glow over everything that made it look…like it was supposed to look.

And then I got it.

All cities have a certain atmosphere. A magic. And each city’s magic has its own unique feel. London, New York Paris, Rome. New Orleans, San Francisco.

I think Prague is special because it is some kind of CENTRE. It’s the Go-between Spot. It’s the Threshold. The space between worlds. The great medieval trading city on the Vltava.

The Middle Ages, the Rennaisance, the Enlightenment, the 19th century, the twentieth century. They all meet. History mashes together. And thrives in the present.

Eastern Europe meets Western Europe; it crashes together like two oceans and foams like a good Czech beer. Bart Simpson sold beside Matruska dolls sold beside Bohemian delicacies. Austria, and Germany, and the Czech Republic, and Russia, and somehow America and China. Feudalism, capitalism, communism, Picasso, Dali, Mozart, Černy, Mucha, Kundera, Havel, Cimmermann. The clean European modern rush of the subways. The homey, warm, wooden decor, unvarnished, just the way it is, vole, of the restaurants and pubs.

High culture of symphony, theatre and opera, art museums and galleries and exhibits. History almost untouched by a twentieth century that left scars all over Europe. Pornographic pictures. unabashed whorehouses. Cigarette smoke. Fried cheese.

Prague: utterly nonchalant: a man shrugs his shoulders, turns his back on a beckoning supermodel and walks away for a beer with his friends.

Something in the way it all comes together: the darkness of the past: the wars, fought, the occupations, the invasions, defenestrations, executions. The tanks pressing the people back. The banners. The chants. The fall of Communism. The joyousness of that time still glowing like the cooled embers of a supernova.

The haute couture, and the trash.

It all comes together with HUMOR. Humor everywhere.

The Dancing Tower above.

Oh, nothing. Just babies climbing up a weird looking building, nothing to see here.

Oh, that? That’s just a typical statue in the park. Wait…what the hell is that?

Because Prague really needs another statue of King Wenceslaus — riding an upside down horse.

Other cities have magic too. But the best cities that I have been too have a unique feeling and details. And Prague is like that.

The exquisite details of its buildings! You look up and there’s a statue you’ve never seen, tucked into the side of a building. Who put it there? How many people have never noticed it? How long as it watched this street? A building behind an iron gate, you’ve never quite noticed on a side street. They mystery of it’s courtyard. A litle restaurant in the wall that sells burritos. )

Prague is special. The crowds no longer bother me. When I go now, I get off the main path of the Walk and explore the side streets, where the life goes on, where everything is Big City Czech, rumble of cars, bustle of people going to work, Vietnamese convenience stories, pubs, pubs, pubs, a gallery here, a weird Middle Eastern hole in the wall here a used bookstore and an electronics shop.

And I wish I had lived here and explored these streets when I was young, before life had strapped me down with responsibilities and planning. I thought I was going to.

You really should visit.

What is the best book written on King Arthur?

As far as medieval stories go, it is undoubtedly Le Morte D’Arthur by Ser Thomas Malory. It is the first collection I know of that collates all of the various legends of Arthur and puts them down in one tome.

Interestingly, though it was not actually written as a book itself, but as a serial written by Malory while he was imprisoned during the Wars of the Roses.

Eventually it was compiled into a book. Technicaly only the lat part of it is called Le Morte d’Arthur, but that is the best part.

Having said that it is, of course, very much a late medieval book. I mean, there are endless lists of knights, interminable accounts of tourney battles…If reading an play-by-play, almost second by second account of an extinct sport is your cup of tea, you will love this book. But don’t get me wrong, it is great. Most great modern Arthurian novels or series are based on Le MOrte D’arthur.

---

As far as modern retellings go I would recommend the following:

This book retells the tale of Arthur from beginning to end. While deeply influenced by Le Morte D’Arthur, T.H. White departs quite a bit from traditional tellings of the saga. Beginning with a whimsical, humorous account of Arthur’s magical youth and training by Merlin, the book gradually turns into a heavy rumination on mankind’s inhumanity to man, with the bright-eyed, intelligent Arthur gradually being ground down by the realities of politics and rule into despair.

---

Another brilliant, Le MOrte D’Arthur based retelling is Marion Zimmer Bradley’s The Mists of Avalon.

The familiar story here is told from the woman’s perspective and manages to be completely fresh because of it. The main character is Morgan LeFay, the half-sister of Arthur cast as a villain in most stories. Here she is a pagan priestess fighting to preserve her culture in the wake of a rapidly spreading Christianity. But other female characters (Ygraine, Guinevere) are also fully fleshed out, complex characters given great depth and motivation. I highly recommend this book.

Just don’t read too much about Bradley: she was a monster in life. It is helpful to separate the artist from the art.

---

There are a number of historical retellings out there. Of those which I have read, I loved Bernard Cornwell’s Warlord Chronicles. (Starting with The Winter King.) This mostly dispenses with the traditional story and tells a wholly original tale set in a very vivid post-Roman Britain. It’s got the usual Cornwell hallmarks: incredibly written battles (he writes them better than anyone), blonde damsels and evil priests, but the books are really well written “guy books” , placing the reader in what is essentially a completely different world of superstition and fear.

---

For young adults or older children Rosemary Sutcliffe’s trilogy retelling the story still ranks among the most beautiful books I have ever read. (I read them at 13.)

Nothing much original in her stories, (although she also has a historical ARthur novel that stands separate.) Just sheer loveliness of writing.

Her series starts with The Sword and the Circle.

Written April 10th

299 Views · 7 Upvotes

Upvotes7

ASOIAF/GOT: Who fulfills the "Wise Master" trope in a Song of Ice and Fire?

 Star Wars had Obi-Wan, Harry Potter had Dumbledore (arguably Snape) Gandalf was the guy in Lord of the Rings And Batman could always rely on Alfred for guidance and wisdom. Who can we identify in this role in ASOIAF?

Obi-Wan is oneWho , but really Yoda is also the wise master in Star Wars. There can be more than one. And there is more than one in Bran arc.

Note, Arya and Jon Snow also have obvious mentor figures in their own story-arcs. As does Sansa, in a really weird, trope-twisted way in which her mentor is also her predator.

But I’m not sure if their mentors quite fit the ‘wise master’ trope that you mention.

Of course Aemon Targaryen is wise, but I don’t see him as Jon’s mentor as much as Jeor Mormont or Qhorin Halfhand is. He is more Sam’s mentor.

Bloodraven probably fits it best. Though he is quite a bit creepier than Yoda, Obi-Wan Kenobi, Gandalf or Dumbledore.

But Bran really has three ‘wise master” mentors. The earthly wiseman, the intermediate wise man and the metaphysical wise man.

---

The earthly “wise master” is Luwin.

Luwin helps Bran with political decisions and gives him general advice. He generally cares for him and pushes him along.

. Now, he is sort of wrong about a lot of things, particularly, the metaphysical aspects of the world in which Bran lives and he pooh-pooh’s Bran’s magical powers. Since Bran’s journey is obviously a magic one, he ends up being a hindrance.

True to form, though, he ends up dying while Bran "goes up a level."

---

The second is Jojen Reed.

Now, Jojen is only a ten year old boy, but he is referred to as ‘old man’ by some because of his unusual and precocious wisdom. He sort of gets Bran started on the magical aspect of his journey.

And while he may not have died to save Bran yet, trust me…he will. This is why I like that jojen paste theory (though I am not really sold on it.). Because, my god, if someone dies for somebody it should be creepy and disturbing, not just another perfunctory stop along the way to the Holy Grail.

The third, and probably most important, is obviously Bloodraven.

This ancient, wizened freak in the weirwood tree, who has been watching Bran all his life, visits Bran in dreams and trains him in the Ways of the Force…Oops, I mean the Ways of the Greenseer.

Anyway, he is clearly the main one.

And he’ll die too. And I hope it is disturbing.

Because if there is one thing a hero must do, it is leave a trail of dead bodies behind him so that he can fulfill his journey.

The world is ready for a new kind of story, I think. This is why I still hope that Bran will be the hero who screws everything up.

Written January 26th

ASOIAF/GOT: Why Did Robb Stark lose?

Written January 26th:

Three major factors:

• He lost the North.
• His military goal was thwarted by his uncle Edmure.
• His biggest political bargaining chip was thrown away by his mother Catelyn.

---

First we have to determine what Robb Stark’s goals were. His goals were

1. to assert Northern and Riverland independence
2. to defend the Riverlands against the invading Lannister forces
3. To rid the Riverlands of the forces
4. To win the freedom of his sisters from Lannister captivity.

In fact, he was winning for a long time.

He beat Tywin Lannister’s forces badly at the Whispering Wood, capturing Jaime Lannister with minimal losses and scattering his army to the winds. Tywin’s forces were literally running so fast towards the safety of Harrenhal that they were dropping dead from exhaustion on the march.

But they continued to raid, which created a stalemate: neither could defeat the other in their respective castles and neither wanted to march to open battle.

So Robb had the bright idea to invade the Westerlands. In the medieval political milieu of Westeros, this was the worst thing that could possibly happen to a lord. The whole foundation of the Westerosi political system is built on oaths that are given in exchange for military protection.

If you can’t protect your own lands, you really have lost the right to lordship in the eyes of most Westerosi.

There in the Westerlands, he utterly destroyed a reserve Lannister army, killing it’s general (another Lannister). While revenge was a perk of this strategy, the main goal was still to rid the Riverlands of the Lannister forces.

And it worked. Immediately, Tywin gathered the skirts of his army around him and went running west to defend his lands.

But two things happened then.

1. Theon and the Greyjoys unexpectedly invaded the North, capturing even Winterfell, blocking passage north and murdering Robb’s younger brothers Rickon and Bran. (Or so everyone thought.)
2. Edmure, not knowing Robb’s complete strategy, blocked Tywin from crossing the Trident and entering the Westerlands, thus rendering Robb’s journey west almost pointless.
3. Catelyn freed Jaime Lannister.

Losing the North was a big thing. Bigger than people realize.

It immediately weakened his political position among his bannermen, which was already weak due to his youth (he was, like, a freshman in high school) and relative inexperience. But prior to losing the North, as long as he was kicking Lannister ass, his crown was pretty secure.

But if he can’t protect his own lands…what kind of lord is he?

So he had problems with the Karstarks; he had problems with the Freys(whose pride was also hurt by Robb’s breaking of his wedding vow); he had problems with the Boltons, who immediately sent an army east to Duskendale and defeat at the hand of Tarly’s forces; and who then planned the Red Wedding with the Freys.

Edmure’s victory at the fords ruined Robb’s strategy.

Once Tywin had been forced south to King’s Landing and had joined forces with the gigantic, huge, humongous, massive, mega-army of the Tyrell’s, and utterly defeated Stannis’ forces, Robb really had no choice, especially when deprived of his biggest bargaining chip, Jaime Lannister.

He had to go north. Abandon the Riverlands to their own defenses and hope to god he found a way back north to get rid of the scurvy island rats that had overrun large swaths of the north.

At that point his ambitions had dwindled to one all-important goal:

1. Regain the north.

That’s it. He had to abandon the Riverlands, which were probably not a practical addition to his realm anyway. He had to abandon any hope of forcing Arya and Sansa back into his realm. And it was already too late to destroy the Lannister forces.

The catch was, that he had to find an alternative route north as the Ironborn held Moat Cailin, which meant passing through the Twins on the way to the marshlands of the Neck.

He still could have achieved that goal, but Bolton and Frey, having already read the writing on the wall and having become convinced of the inevitability of Tywin Lannister’s eventual victory had already planned for his murder.

Is English losing importance in the EU, as per Juncker's words?

Last week, in the latest bitch-fight between Jean-Claude Juncker and Teresa May,  Juncker made a speech in French, making a point by prefacing it by saying that "English is losing importance in Europe(sic)." (He meant the EU: he wasn't talking about, say,  Belarus, I assume.

No, it is not, not currently. Not where I am.

It is an absurd statement. German and Russian have gained a bit of importance in the past decade or so, it’s true. But there is actually more demand for English than ever. Brexit or petty nationalism or EU rhetoric has nothing to do with this.

It’s about communication.

People are not going to stop learning English all at once in some sort of huff against the British. Most of my clients who learn English do not even communicate with native speakers anyway: they use English to talk to Hungarians, to Chinese, to Polish, to Germans, to French, to Scandinavians, to Russians, even. It has nothing to do with the UK: people are not learning English so that they can become little Englishmen or Americans. They don’t learn English because of us.

Juncker’s statements are petty and incredibly out of touch with the way most people think about the English language in Europe, at least in the part of Europe where I am. Maybe in Brussels, where knowledge of French is high, it’s different. But, you know what? No one cares about Brussels.

In fact, people like Juncker and the rest of those idiots in Brussels don’t really get what the EU is all about: they believe their own cloying, gag-inducing rhetoric.

At base the European Union is practical. That is why it works.

If in the future another language becomes the lingua franca in Europe it will be German or Russian, or both.

I can only assume Juncker’s words are primarily aimed at pissing off the British public in preparation for the UK election. He’d probably had a tipple too many. Yeah, like that is going to work out in his favor.

Clever, Juncker. Keep drinkin’.

How has your town changed since you've been there?

Upvotes7

I’ve lived where I live for 13 years. Vsetin, a small town in the Beskid Mountains of East Czech Republic. Pastel painted Hapsburg buildings next to the bare lines of communist architecture; huge family houses on the outskirts.

When I moved there there was an old dilapidated building in the centre of town, crammed up against the Polyklinika (where specialist doctors work). It was filled with very poor people. It was in horrible condition — it looked like something you’d see in a really depressing movie about Eastern Europe or World War Two.

Most of the inhabitants were Roma. At one point there was a fire and a hole was burned in the roof, which was covered with a big blue tarp for several months in the winter. I have heard it said that the inhabitants of this place made fires in the living rooms, just as a matter of course. I do not know if that is true. Probably just racist nonsense. Nevertheless, it was definitely an eyesore and probably not safe for human habitation.

This building was later demolished. Most of the inhabitants were moved to another set of buildings which had been built on the outskirts of town.

This was somewhat controversial. AS anybody can see the new buildings are far more habitable than the other one. On the other hand there is the fact that it was built on the edge of town, which some groups have decried as racist and likened to immigrant populations living in “suburbs” in Paris.

However, this is not a very large town, and being set in a valley there really is no other land available. In fact, I live no further from the centre than these buildings, though in another area…

But, having said that it’s also next to the water treatement plant, which must be unpleasant on some days and there is no doubt that the mayor of Vsetin, Jiri Cunek, was definitely playing for the populist racist vote — the action coincided right with his senatorial campaign and was heavily publicized.

Basically I agree with the action but the timing was despicable, as was the decision to move a few particularly ‘undesirable’ families to another town completely. They agreed to be moved, technically, but there is something unsavory and “Stalinist” about moving people like that.

The library has moved from this building:

to this one…(The green glass bit on the right is the library.) The old building has been converted into doctor’s office, a Kebab fast food joint and who knows what else.

In general little restaurants and cafes pop up and close down over the years. Not worth mentioning. At least we can get a kebab at 3 in the morning after drinking nowadays. Unfortunately I hardly ever drink any more.

Otherwise, it really hasn’t changed that much.There have been some new houses built on the outskirts of town and a new strip mall put in; the roads are in better repair and the cars are newer; and they worked on one crossroads to make it look nicer; but very little change to the city itself otherwise.

ASOIAF/GOT: Why was Ser Waymar Royce leading the band of Rangers?

Gared was brother of NW for 40 years and Will 4 years. Waymar was brother only for six months, yet he was leading veteran rangers. Why did they put the newbie in charge?

(Written Jan. 22)

 I think there are a few things to consider.

• First of all, Jeor Mormont’s Night’s Watch is not quite the egalitarian meritocracy it pretends to be. There are a lot of examples that point to a general culture of aristocracy that echoes the Westerosi culture to a large extent. (And why wouldn’t it, really? Bit unrealistic to expect otherwise.) Take for example Bowen Marsh’s strident opposition to Jon Snow using Satin as his pool-boy…eh, I mean secretary/squire. Marsh’s objections mainly all come down to the fact that Satin is a low-born male whore.
• Waymar Royce has been trained since birth to command. Trained in the arts of war. Educated. He’s effectively a killing machine with honed instincts. He is brave and has the custom of several thousands years of heroic acts in his own family to inspire him. Even in modern armies, an uneducated soldier can work for 20 years without ever attaining officership, while someone with a bachelor’s degree will be on the fast track to it.
• The fact is Gared and Will are almost certainly illiterate. Having literate officers has all sorts of benefits. An occasional Cotter Pyke will rise to power, sure, but for the most part the lack of education is a very real handicap for the NIght’s Watch. (I think Mormont really should have started a literacy program in the Watch, but he doesn’t really think far enough outside of the box for that.)

Now, that out of the way, I want to defend Waymar Royce. Let’s look at the whole ranging from Waymar Royce’s point of view instead of Gared’s.

He has an assignment to follow some wildlings. He has got two experienced men to guide him but the burden of command is on him. Suddenly, they find some dead wildlings and they want to go back.

What exactly are Gared and Will’s arguments? The Cold Winds are rising?

I mean what would you do? Return to the Wall because these superstitious peasants think some legendary ice monsters that have not been seen for 8000 years outside of fairytales you used to kind of listen to when you were a kid and which everone else told you are not real have come to get ya?

It’s absurd. And yes, I know they all, including Royce, had a creepy sense of foreboding, but frankly I have the same feeling whenever I go to my garage with the lights off. That doesn’t mean I seriously believe there are dead things waiting to eat me up down there.

You are a soldier. You are in charge. You weigh consequences. And you do your duty.

And that is what Royce did. Even to his last moment, when he had the balls to take out his sword and go head-to-head with a legendary ice monster from a horror story. He deserves more respect.

ASOIAF/GOT: What should the cast of Game of Thrones look like, according to the books?

t’s a large cast, so this is not going to be complete — not at all..

Bran Stark should be 7–9 years old for the duration of the series so far. He should have the auburn hair and blue eyes of the Tullys.

Jon Snow is fourteen at series’ start. Sixteen or perhaps 17 when he is assassinated. He has dark hair, grey eyes and a long ‘Stark’ face. It is mentioned in Clash of Kings that he has grown a beard. Long training and experience in the field would probably give him a muscular, lean physique. He seems to be shorter than some characters.

But before Clash of Kings and the Great Ranging, I imagine him beardless, as below.

Ned Stark: like Jon Snow: dark hair, grey eyes, long face, bearded. About 35 years old.

Catelyn Stark: about 30. Very beautiful. Milf city.

Sansa:

Agee ranges from about 11 to about 13. No older. auburn hair, blue eyes. Heart-breakingly beautiful. The kind of girl you want to protect.

Cersei: about 30. Pale blonde hair("gold and white strands of hair”) green eyes., according to Jon Snow. Ridiculously beautiful, ‘like the sun.’

Tyrion: But ugly and shorter than in the show. Beetle-browed, twisted legs, one green eye and one black eye. Hair pale blond/silver, sparse beard like blonde and black wires. After second book missing three quarters of his nose. So ugly that women recoil from him.

Theon Greyjoy:

Pre-Reek. Very good looking. Gets laid constantly. Dark hair. Always smiling. Big wide mouth.

Post-Reek. Like a senior citizen: emaciated, a few broken teeth, missing fingers, white hair.

Asha Greyjoy: Lean, with a sharp beak of a nose. Has a knife between her breasts. Badass. (Costume below is a little improbable but the other pictures looked too pretty.)

Jorah Mormont: Big, Bald, ugly guy with a beard and a really hairy back. IN A Dance with dragons acquires an ugly tattoo on his face and is pretty much permanently swollen and black and blue due to beatings.

Stannis Baratheon: Male pattern baldness. Bright blue eyes. Big guy. About 35 but looks older.

That is surely enough to start on! There are a lot of characters in this show!

ASOIAF/GOT: Is Robb's reason for breaking his vow to the Freys better in the book than in the show?

t is more interesting — incalculably so — in the books.

It’s the difference between tragedy and melodrama.

Books:

Ultimately Robb was trying to erase the stain of his father Ned’s dishonor by marrying Jeyne Westerling, which is all the more tragic when you consider that Ned actually did NOT in all actuality father a bastard. It was a choice between hurting WAlder Frey’s pride and ruining Jeyne Westerling’s life.

In the show it was a selfish move, pure and simple. A soap opera plot, something that modern readers can relate to.

In the books, Robb is put in the kind of position that GRRM likes to put characters: a bad one in which he has no choice but to choose between two courses of action which are evil. He is driven into Jeyne’s arms in a moment of weakness brought on by a wound and extreme grief over the death of his brothers, Brandon and Rickon.

But in the show there is no death of his brothers to motivate him(or Catelyn). IN fact, the show goes out of their way to emphasize that by having Theon have all the ravens killed so that news of the Stark princes’ “death” does not get out. Whereas in the books, he sends that news far and wide.

After having dishonored Jeyne, Robb feels he has to marry her, so as to keep the dishonor of her deflowering from staining her. He knows full well that he is also breaking his wedding vow but he considers that the right thing to do, the lesser of two evils: he does not want the same smirch on his honor that that his otherwise wholly honorable father had on his: he has seen the pain it causes, the way it has affected his half-brother Jon Snow.

Who does he really hurt by casting aside his vow? Only the Freys’ pride.

Compared to that, ruining Jeyne Westerling’s reputation and possibly fathering a bastard on her, destined to grow up outcast and alone, seems much worse to him.

Now you could argue he made the wrong decision. That’s especially clear with hindsight. But he did it for the right reasons.

Show Robb?

He wanted Talisa. He took her. He willfully broke his vows.

He wasn’t grief-stricken. His feelings for Walder Frey are decidedly more cavalier and arrogant. There is no logical reason for him wed Talisa: she is not a Westerosi noble and not bound by the strict rules of their society. Her society, indeed, seems much freer about sexual mores and so on. So not marrying her does her no damage. It’s a choice between hurting Frey’s pride and…well, not pleasing his own sexual urges. IN our society, that would be OK. But not in Westeros.

There is no wrestling with his conscience. No conflict of honor.

He just didn’t care. It was an idiotic, honorless move.

Now I’m not criticizing the show too much. They only have ten hours a season to tell an incredibly complex plot and I can imagine that the original storyline was something very hard to pull off in a few scenes and lines of dialogue: even in the book it all happens ‘off-page’, so to speak. So this was their work around.

For lovers of soap opera, the show’s version is fine. Hey, when I was 14 I liked All My Children. Watched it every day.

But it is the book version which has the logic, heft and complex beauty to it that makes me a fan of the series.

Written Jan. 16