Given that I was (lightheartedly) chided last time around, I'll make sure I say it this time - SPOILER ALERT!
As I mentioned in my last post, I've recently been rereading Sandel for the first time since I finally managed to find a reasonably affordable copy, nearly three years ago. As I wrote in my post about the book at the time, I still think the ending of the story is a depressing cop-out, but the vast majority of the book is deserving of its 'cult classic' status. When I searched online to see if there were any recent reviews, I found several, but two in particular stand out, for almost opposite reasons. One was generally laudatory of the book, and made the point, which I completely agree with, that Sandel is one of those books which repays rereading, because there are always things that you miss first time around. I certainly saw things in the story this time that I'd totally overlooked, including one briefly sketched, but psychologically central aspect of the plot, namely the suicide of David's unrequited 'first love'. The second 'review', if I can call it that, given that it was a one-paragraph comment, was all too predictable, a kneejerk parroting of tabloid pablum, namely that the commenter would only give the story the minimum one star, not because of its literary merits, or otherwise, but because of the subject matter - 'pederasty....illegal and immoral'. I'd argue that a consensual relationship between a 13 and a 19 year old, whether real or fictional, couldn't possibly qualify as pederasty in any case, but it was the closed-mindedness that I found so irritating and depressing - 'I don't like the idea, so therefore it's irredeemably wrong', the hallmark of bigots everywhere.
I came across a couple of other things I didn't know, as well, through my Google search the other day. Firstly, that there has been a theatrical adaptation of the novel, at last year's Edinburgh Festival fringe, although the one review of the play I could find wasn't all that positive - on the play's theatrical merits, I hasten to add, not it's subject matter. Whatever else, the actor who'd played Tony was, from the couple of promotional photos I saw, completely wrong for the role, at least visually - one of the central premises of the plot is around the preternatural beauty of Tony's voice, and his corresponding physical beauty, whereas the actor was, I'm afraid, both much too old and nowhere near good-looking enough, to the point where he looked like an adult portraying some kind of satirical caricature of a choirboy. The fact that there had been such an adaptation at all amazed me, though, in the face of the current (and longstanding) hysteria about 'paedos'. I have no expectation that the production marks any sort of crack in the unbroken tide of opprobrium, but that it happened at all, apparently without lynchings and riots in the streets ensuing, offers a crumb, at least, of encouragement. The second discovery I made brought out a much more petty reaction from me, though - in the wake of the play, the book has been republished for the first time in 40-odd years. After the trouble I had in finding a copy at any sort of price that wasn't off in the stratosphere - I eventually paid £40, but I saw copies on sale for hundreds and hundreds of pounds - to find that I could now pick up a brand new copy for a tenner (or download a Kindle version for even less!) was frustrating, to say the least. Not to mention the no doubt severely detrimental effect on the resale value of my copy, of course!
Love & best wishes to all
Sammy B
As I mentioned in my last post, I've recently been rereading Sandel for the first time since I finally managed to find a reasonably affordable copy, nearly three years ago. As I wrote in my post about the book at the time, I still think the ending of the story is a depressing cop-out, but the vast majority of the book is deserving of its 'cult classic' status. When I searched online to see if there were any recent reviews, I found several, but two in particular stand out, for almost opposite reasons. One was generally laudatory of the book, and made the point, which I completely agree with, that Sandel is one of those books which repays rereading, because there are always things that you miss first time around. I certainly saw things in the story this time that I'd totally overlooked, including one briefly sketched, but psychologically central aspect of the plot, namely the suicide of David's unrequited 'first love'. The second 'review', if I can call it that, given that it was a one-paragraph comment, was all too predictable, a kneejerk parroting of tabloid pablum, namely that the commenter would only give the story the minimum one star, not because of its literary merits, or otherwise, but because of the subject matter - 'pederasty....illegal and immoral'. I'd argue that a consensual relationship between a 13 and a 19 year old, whether real or fictional, couldn't possibly qualify as pederasty in any case, but it was the closed-mindedness that I found so irritating and depressing - 'I don't like the idea, so therefore it's irredeemably wrong', the hallmark of bigots everywhere.
I came across a couple of other things I didn't know, as well, through my Google search the other day. Firstly, that there has been a theatrical adaptation of the novel, at last year's Edinburgh Festival fringe, although the one review of the play I could find wasn't all that positive - on the play's theatrical merits, I hasten to add, not it's subject matter. Whatever else, the actor who'd played Tony was, from the couple of promotional photos I saw, completely wrong for the role, at least visually - one of the central premises of the plot is around the preternatural beauty of Tony's voice, and his corresponding physical beauty, whereas the actor was, I'm afraid, both much too old and nowhere near good-looking enough, to the point where he looked like an adult portraying some kind of satirical caricature of a choirboy. The fact that there had been such an adaptation at all amazed me, though, in the face of the current (and longstanding) hysteria about 'paedos'. I have no expectation that the production marks any sort of crack in the unbroken tide of opprobrium, but that it happened at all, apparently without lynchings and riots in the streets ensuing, offers a crumb, at least, of encouragement. The second discovery I made brought out a much more petty reaction from me, though - in the wake of the play, the book has been republished for the first time in 40-odd years. After the trouble I had in finding a copy at any sort of price that wasn't off in the stratosphere - I eventually paid £40, but I saw copies on sale for hundreds and hundreds of pounds - to find that I could now pick up a brand new copy for a tenner (or download a Kindle version for even less!) was frustrating, to say the least. Not to mention the no doubt severely detrimental effect on the resale value of my copy, of course!
Love & best wishes to all
Sammy B
I have purchased a couple of reprints of books I enjoyed when I was younger, and gladly paid the far lower price than the original copies that were for sale were bringing.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting that the play generated little or no controversy. Over here, the South Carolina legislature monetarily penalized two colleges for having LGBT books in their summer reading program (one at each school). One of them retaliated by bringing the play adaptation to their school all with donated money! Take that you lousy Christofacist spittle flecked Republicans!!!
Peace <3
Jay
Hello Jay
DeleteI'm surprised that at least one of our delightful tabloids - yes, I'm looking at you, The Sun - didn't pick up on the play - 'Paedo filth at Edinburgh Festival' would have been an unsurprising headline, especially as it would've given them the chance to have a sideswipe at 'elitist intellectuals' as well as their usual and favourite soft target. I thoroughly approve of the production at the South Carolina college - maybe, given the Tories' current penchant for declaring, on the basis of practically no evidence, that the UK is a 'Christian country', a few, preferably Christian affiliated, schools should perform it as their next school play, especially as David is an atheist as well as a boylover in the story!
Love & best wishes
Sammy B