Monday, April 15, 2013

from 1491 to1493 with author charles c. mann

Article first published as Book Review: 1493 by Charles C. Mann on Blogcritics.

Charles C. Mann begins his book 1493: Uncovering the New World Columbus Created with a discussion of his vegetable garden. Thinking about heirloom tomatoes seeds and how they had originated in the Americas, but then journeyed all over the world — Japan, Italy, the Ukraine and many other countries — to come back to this continent got the author thinking about global trade, travel, and cultural exchange.

At the same time he was tracing the origins of his tomato crop Mann became interested in the Columbian Exchange, a process first written about by historian Alfred W. Crosby. The Columbian Exchange is the worldwide exchange of culture, plants, animals, people, and even disease between the Old and New Worlds. His thoughts on crops and research on the Columbian Exchange was the beginning and the basis of his entertainingly written and very well-researched 1493.


Vintage has recently released the book in paperback. At 700+ pages it is a dense read, but never a dull one. One story, one history, one anecdote leads to another. Before the reader knows it, he or she has embarked on a journey with Columbus, or Colón, to Hispaniola. Then with John Rolfe (and earthworms) to Jamestown, Virginia to learn about tobacco. Tobacco also takes us to China, where potatoes (sweet and white) then take up the story as the location shifts back to Europe. Around and around Mann follows crops and disease and cultural exchanges. Voyages that may have begun as a Eurocentric and even mythical search for gold and silver resulted in the exchange of goods and crops that we now take for granted, but were once foreign to this continent.

In 1491 Mann wrote that the indigenous peoples of the South Americas were more sophisticated than had been previously believed. As compelling as its predecessor, in 1493 Mann takes things a little further, describing how early trade and cultural interaction have led to our current global economy. 1493 is chock-full of photos and illustrations to help punctuate Mann's historical travelogue. The last 180 pages are full of the author's notes, credits, and citations.

Previous histories have posed that European firepower is responsible for the conquest of the Americas, but Mann cogently argues that the smallest of creatures — micro-organisms — may actually be responsible for the success of our current culture. A successful tobacco crop meant more for the survival of the early colonists in Jamestown than boatloads of soldiers or settlers. According to Mann's theory, similar micro-organisms played a part in the colonists' victory in the American Revolution, and the slave trade in Africa.

Charles C. Mann is a correspondent for The Atlantic Monthly, Science, and Wired, and has written articles for National Geographic, the New York Times, Vanity Fair, and the Washington Post. There is much to be learned in 1493 about our country and its origins. Together with 1491 Mann has shone a previously unseen light on the culture, and now global impact, of early American inhabitants. One wonders what more we could learn if he decides to keep going, into the turn of the 15th century and beyond.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Sunday, April 14, 2013

Saturday, April 13, 2013

my favorite blooming tree of the moment is ...

... Yellow Poinciana. It's blooming everywhere now and reminds me a bit of the forsythia that I grew up with in New Jersey.

Untitled

Friday, April 12, 2013

i try, but i can't help it, i find julianne moore annoying

I think I'm supposed to like Julianne Moore — we all are, aren't we? She's a multi-Academy Award nominated actress (Boogie Nights, The End of the Affair, Far from Heaven, The Hours). But when I see her in a movie I can't help it, I cringe inwardly. I'm sure in real life she's just delightful — she seems like she would be from interview snippets I've seen. As I took a glance at some of the movies that I have seen her in over the years I started to feel better. I think I'm supposed to dislike her. Either that, or the majority of parts she has selected (or has been chosen) to play are intrinsically annoying characters. Really. Moore even supports my argument:
"I never care that [my characters] are "strong". I never care that they're even affirmative. I look for that thing that's human and recognizable and emotional. You know, we're not perfect, we're not heroic, we're not in control. We're our own worst enemies sometimes, we cause our own tragedies ... that's the stuff that I think is really compelling." — Wikipedia citing "Episode 7, Julianne Moore". Inside the Actors Studio. Season 9. December 22, 2002.
Well that makes me feel a little less guilty. Let's review.

The Lost World: Jurassic Park: Save yourself - she's dangerous!
1995's Nine Months is probably the first movie I ever saw Moore in, and it wasn't a pleasant introduction. The entire film is offensive, but her whining, cliched pregnant woman is so annoying that it's understandable boyfriend Hugh Grant is having second thoughts about their relationship.


She was equally annoying in The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997) as intrepid, downright foolhardy scientist Sarah Harding, who nearly gets boyfriend Jeff Goldblum eaten by ferocious dinosaurs and anyone else who happens to get in the way, too.


I found all of 2002's The Hours pretty obnoxious, especially Nicole Kidman's so-noticeable proboscis prosthesis as author Virginia Woolf, so it probably isn't fair to single out Moore's character of Laura Brown, who is supposed to be a modernized Clarissa Dalloway. But I will, anyway.

2002's Far from Heaven is supposed to be Moore's masterpiece. It is visually compelling, and she gives it her all, but I didn't connect with her tortured '50s housewife as much as I did her wardrobe.

Far From Heaven: Cool sunglasses
A Single Man: With friends like these ...

A Single Man (2009) is a very lovely understated movie about George Falconer (Colin Firth), a college professor who has just lost his partner Jim in a car accident. Moore plays his self-centered "friend" Charley who makes a clumsy pass at him when he is at his most vulnerable.

As Jules in 2010's The Kids Are All Right she severely, even blithely, risks her long-term committed relationship to partner Nic (Annette Bening) by having an affair with the sperm donor father of their two children, Paul (Mark Ruffalo).


In the recent Crazy, Stupid, Love. (2011) she played Emily Weaver, a woman who has become disillusioned and bored with her marriage to high-school sweetheart Cal. She callously tells him she is having an affair with her co-worker (Kevin Bacon) and asks for a divorce. I can't say I was really rooting for Emily and Cal to get back together, even though that's where all Hollywood movie scripts are headed.

Crazy, Stupid, Love.: Look out, Mr.
I think I prefer to see Moore in a large ensemble piece, where she is just part of the action. I like her better when she isn't front and center. Even if her character has annoying qualities, I find her performances in movies like  Boogie Nights (1997), The Big Lebowski (1998), Magnolia (1999), and The Shipping News (2001) more successful.

Moore is really going for an unlikable character in her next film, Carrie, where she will play the ultimate messed up mom, Margaret White. I have no desire to see it, really — do we need a third version of Stephen King's novel? — but I also have no doubt that Moore will bring exactly the right quality to make me dislike her immensely.
Enhanced by Zemanta