dirac

I would like to encourage anyone who would like to do a review to feel free to post one as a new thread, even if it's not a book club book. It's always nice to get a discussion going (although, again, we don't encourage political ones, especially current political ones). So if you've read something thought provoking, let us know about it!

Thanks for the very interesting post, Garyecht. It's true that there are people who like to read and those who don't, but there is the question of, are kids getting the training they need just to get along, not to say prosper? Your point about reading ability improving over time is well taken. People do forget such things.

Thank you for posting, Marenetha, and welcome to the discussion. Isn't it possible, though, that the firings you mention could be age-discriminatory in nature, and wouldn't that complicate matters a bit? I'd also suggest that the companies who are doing those storybook ballets are more likely to be purely classical in style than those with a modern bent, and thus uniformity in look and strict classical technique might work against minorities in those companies. That would not excuse discrimination, of course, but it does raise the barriers against certain kinds of diversity requirements. I can't recall that much of Segal's original article, but while we've seen dancers categorized by age before, putting such things into actual legislation would seem to present obvious difficulties....

Stern Grove can certainly be a challenge. In lieu of a longer post, which I do promise to attempt at a later date, I'd chime in that I did enjoy watching Gonzalo Garcia this season, and the Nanna's Lied program Rachel mentions was indeed dismal.

Thank you for posting, Marenetha, and welcome to the discussion. Isn't it possible, though, that the firings you mention could be age-discriminatory in nature, and wouldn't that complicate matters a bit? I'd also suggest that the companies who are doing those storybook ballets are more likely to be purely classical in style than those with a modern bent, and thus uniformity in look and strict classical technique might work against minorities in those troupes. That would not excuse discrimination, of course, but it does raise the barriers against certain kinds of diversity requirements.

Even if the judge were thirty instead of fifty or so, it wouldn't necessarily make any difference. The argot of any in-group is going to sound odd to outsiders, which is part of the point. I quite like the idea of calling in a drug dealer to explain certain terms to the court.

I saw only parts of the show, tuning in mainly to check out the host, but I did like the segment from "Movin' Out" as well. Otherwise I can't comment, not having seen anything that was nominated. I did read "Take Me Out" (available in paperback from Amazon!) and didn't think much of it, but I'm sure it held up very well against its competition. I also can't say that Redgrave and Dennehy strike me as ideal casting for their roles in "Long Day's Journey Into Night," although doubtless they are both good.

I'm currently reading/planning to read/dreaming of having the time to get to the following current books: Moneyball by Michael Lewis An Unfinished Life: John F. Kennedy by Robert Dallek The Devil Wears Prada by Lauren Weisberger The Clinton Wars by Sidney Blumenthal (no, I won't start a discussion) On the less current end: Blindness by Henry Green The Trials of Lenny Bruce by Ronald Collins and David Stover A re-read of The Golden Bowl. I find late James richer with every reading. Also, I saw the most recent movie version on cable last month and I need to clear it out of my head. One of the dismal things about bad movies of novels you love is that they sometimes imprint themselves on your brain whether you want them there or not. (When I go back to The Great Gatsby, it's still hard for me to block out visions of Mia Farrow in the awful wig and Redford in his equally godawful white suits.) I was recently disappointed by the late Meg Greenfield's "Washington." Except for a few bright spots, it was as dull as her Newsweek columns. Hard to understand how someone as sharp, informed, and talented as Greenfield could manage to be so numbingly anodyne much of the time. I must agree regretfully with Nanatchka that The Lovely Bones was a dud. Reading Seabiscuit last summer made me return to William Nack's Secretariat: the Making of a Champion. Still the best racehorse bio I have read, and one of the best sports bios I've read, period.

Thanks, svemaus. Good for the Finns......

I think you're right, Maxi 3D. The arts world got carried away like virtually everyone else, and assumed they'd have money that turned out not to be there. Live and learn. (Although I seem to recall that there were questions of the who-is-this-guy-really nature about Vilar from the beginning. I could be mistaken.) carbro, I agree that the example you've given is indeed a model of the modest, self-effacing philanthropist, but it's a reality of the art world that people often give money in order to bring attention to themselves, see their names on stuff, and climb the social ladder. People will be people, I guess.

Thanks for your thoughts, Ed I haven't seen the company yet, but hope to catch it next week. Will follow up if I do.

The Teletubbies exert a strange hold over this viewer, but even without that I must defend them -- I don't think the program is dumb, only geared to the very, very young and their love of repetition.

I thought the fact that Szpilman wrote his book so soon after the war was a plus, not a minus, although I agree that had he written it much later it would certainly have been a different book.

I didn't think Lelyveld did such a bad job, carbro, but in an interim capacity he's unlikely to make any major changes that we'll see as readers. His tenure is said to be open-ended, but I'm sure they'll want to name someone new and move on as rapidly as possible.

It's too bad that TV series usually don't show music credits, as movies do.

I was especially fond of books about animals, especially horses: "The Black Stallion," "Man o' War," and Marguerite Henry's books, including "Misty of Chincoteague." Also "Lad: A Dog." I loved Streatfeild's "Ballet Shoes" – my first ballet book.

Well, the Times can close a show, and it's true that a portion of the readership is interested in the reviews chiefly as consumer guides. Those are just facts. But the Times has given generous space to the fine arts.

SFB has done The Cage, but not Faun (although I could be wrong about that).

Howell Raines was the executive editor. Gerald Boyd, managing editor, also resigned. Joseph Lelyveld, Raines' predecessor, is taking over as interim executive editor. The Blair scandal was not, in itself, a large enough matter to provoke the resignation of an executive editor under ordinary circumstances, but needless to say, these circumstances were far from ordinary.

It's clear that we're a very high minded group of readers . I'm wondering if there's anyone planning to read something a little more self-indulgent, shall we say? For beach reading, I've often plumped for Michael Crichton. He writes like a computer program and doesn't seem to like girls very much, but he's a fast read and won't insult your intelligence. (And I can recommend "The Great Train Robbery" without any of the foregoing qualifications.) I also used to dig Judith Krantz in her glory days (pre-"Mistral's Daughter") and never found a satisfactory replacement.

This is definitely worth a read. Jacobs seems to be saying, a little more sharply, what others have said about Morris' recent work. I don't agree with her entirely about "A Garden" or "Sandpaper Ballet" in particular, but she does have a point about Morris vis-à-vis ballet companies in general. I'm looking forward to seeing Morris' new "Sylvia" on SFB, but how much nicer, and more appropriate, it would have been to have Ashton's "Sylvia" instead, if it could have been managed. I could have done without some of her other remarks – she seems to be saying in places, Oh he's just so nelly, I can't stand it. I also think that she's complaining about Morris' allegedly "political" agenda while clearly making aesthetic criticisms that are equally "political" in nature, with no acknowledgment of same. (And Sontag has never struck me as the Utopian type.) The comments on Morris' and Taylor's different view of groups are also worth noting.

Franzen did make a fool of himself in several interesting ways in l'affaire Oprah. He should either have had the nerve to tell Winfrey that he was withdrawing his book for consideration, or done the polite thing and thanked her graciously for her selection. As it was, he made a pretty spectacular mess of it and was most insulting to Winfrey, who was trying to do him a major favor. I understand what he was getting at, but those are issues you wrestle with in private and then make your decision -- you don't make a big public display of ambivalence. Sorry, back to the topic.

Very interesting read, kfw. Thanks!

Now that the summer months have arrived, I thought I'd start a reading thread. Tell us what you're planning to read, are reading, or just finished reading, and include the good, the bad, and the ugly....

I watch quite a bit of TV. No apologies. The advertisers subsidize the programming, which is why we have commercials. As in many other areas of life, it's a tradeoff, with its good and bad points. As a member of the lower class vulgarian hordes, I for one would not like to contemplate life without the occasional re-viewing of the Nairobi Trio....