AS SPARKS FLY UPWARD: My First Novel Published

On Feb. 16, 2014 I published my first novel entitled: As Sparks Fly Upward : Tale of Belief, Unbelief and Hypocrisy.  The novel is 270 pages long and consists of 77,473 words.  It is personal, sometimes funny, frequently irreverent and often sad.  The blurb on the back cover describes the novel as follows:

As Sparks Fly Upward is about a young man’s inability to come to terms with the death of his father.  Joe Duncan’s father was an alcoholic, and Joe is well on the ways of becoming one himself.  His hometown’s condemnation of what happened to his father along with the unwillingness to provide his father with a decent funeral turns Joe against that community.   He learns not to trust even those that do care for him.

Joe’s rejection of organized religion is tied to his distaste of the small-mindedness of a community that wouldn’t accept someone like Joe or Joe’s father into its circle. 

The novel can be purchased for $11.23 at the following website:

https://www.createspace.com/4597352

It can also be found on Kindle at a price of $9.99 at the following website:

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00P6JK6AY_


Let me comment quickly about the price as this was not randomly set.  The minimum price I was allowed to set by the publisher was $10.23.  I decided to then add a dollar on for my own royalties.  I don’t anticipate making a great deal of money because, other than this website and a short story published in Writer’s Note Magazine, I have no publishing history.  I published in this manner because of too many rejections by other publishing companies that apparently did not have enough time to review my work.  One such publisher mentioned this fact to me while at the same time assuring me that they took my submitted work seriously.  I just do not have time to wait in line to see this novel in print.

As Sparks Fly Upward is not for everyone.  I’m not saying this to be modest or because I’m a bad sales person.  I feel the novel can be extremely funny in parts and it also has an important point to make.  The novel is a critique concerning the self-satisfaction of the voices of moral authority in many communities.  However, the fictional character that narrates the book while being unique, talented and at times extremely generous is also an extremely flawed human being.  I need to make clear that the narrator’s character does not speak for me.  He is contrasted by the other main character in the book: a young woman of about the same age with a similar background who, despite their similarities, has not succumbed to the cynicism of the narrator.  Still, the problems that the narrator faces are not easily surmountable and so the novel ends on a somewhat unhappy note.

The theme of this book may be too ambitious – especially for a first novel.  By explanation, it’s not possible to resolve all problems in any work.  I hope to provide more positive characters in a series of short stories that I hope to publish this summer or early fall.

I originally was going to include in my novel a quote by Friedrich Nietzsche from the Will to Power.  Nietzsche stated: “The arrogance of man: when he sees no purpose, he denies that there can be one!” I decided against including it because too many individuals quote Nietzsche to begin with.  Also, I thought it was a bit incongruous that I would quote from such a renowned atheist when the quote said to me that there is so much more to this world than meets the eye.

 

For those that are still interested, I think you will enjoy the novel.  As Sparks Fly Upward was not hurried to meet any deadline (as were some of my movie reviews) and therefore it’s extremely readable.  It’s also not dull reading.  The cover photo on the novel also tells a story in itself.

I’m now looking forward to getting on with other writing projects.

Robert S. Miller

February 17, 2014

© Robert S. Miller 2014

THE BOOK THIEF (2013): Young Adult Film on Nazi Germany

The Book Thief probably would have received a somewhat better reception from the critics if it had been filmed forty years ago.  Still, though far from perfect it essentially accomplishes what it sets out to do – create a moving impression concerning a young girl’s struggle to be a decent person while living in Germany under Nazi rein. 

I was reluctant to see a film that was 131 minutes in length concerning a subject that few filmmakers would likely handle well.  Most such films become dreary melodramas focused on the tiny angst of the central character while forgetting that World War II is going forward.  Thankfully this does not occur here.

The central character here is played by a newcomer named Sophie Nelisse as Liesel.  Liesel is taken away from her Communist sympathizing mother and forced to be raised by two adoptive parents living in a small village in Germany.  The war is soon to begin.  The girl is apparently as spirited as her biological mother as she doesn’t fit in smoothly with her surroundings, but even her hard-hearted adoptive mother, Rosa (Emily Watson), comes to adore the girl.  Liesel’s adoptive father, Hans (Geoffrey Rush), is already particularly soft-hearted and takes to the girl right away.  Hans is the near-to-well father who would rather play an accordion than locate a job and who refuses to join the Nazi party.

As Hans owes his life to a Jewish father who saved his life during World War I, Hans in turn risks his own family’s existence by harboring the Jewish son named Max (Ben Schnetzer).  Liesel and Max hold many conversations together as Liesel learns more about the outside world.  Liesel also learns about the world through the wife of a German aristocrat who lends her books and teaches her all sorts of stories.  And while Liesel continues to grow, the world around her grows more ominous.  We see book burnings, Jews marched through the streets wearing yellow stars and individuals as old as Hans being drafted and forced to go off to war.  (Typical treatment of the Nazis in film I would agree, but much more relevant than what The Reader portrays where we could easily forget that there were any Nazi atrocities whatsoever.)

Max is forced to flee the village and we presume never to be seen again.  Hans eventually returns after being wounded, and the family hopes to live out the end of the war without more tragedy.  It’s not to be, however, as the village is bombed.  Rosa and Hans both are killed in the bombing as is Liesel’s young friend, Rudy (Nico Liersch) – a young boy with much of the same charm and gifts of Liesel.  Nevertheless, Liesel does survive to see the end of the war and to reunite with Max who miraculously survives.

The Book Thief was directed by Brian Percival and based upon a young adult novel that I’ve never read.  The film is sentimental, but so can be a reading of Oliver Twist or Silas Marner (not to mention the watching other films that have examined life under Nazi occupation such as The Sound of Music or even Casablanca).  It’s not saccharine, like the New York Times review suggested.  In fact, three particularly negative reviews of the The Book Thief written by Stephen Holden writing for the New York Times, Godfrey Cheshire sitting in for the late Roger Ebert, and James Bernardinelli are all pretty much interchangeable.  These reviewers seem to take particular glee in pointing out the film is too warm and tender to be believed.

I agree that the film would have been vastly improved if the narration by a character named Death would have been reduced to a mere thirty seconds.  It’s one of those hiccups in the film.  But picking on the film because Liesel goes from age 13 to 18 without ever seeming to grow older or that the corpses of Hans and Rosa should really have been pictured on screen bloodied and cold with limbs missing are quibbles at best.  There is real sadness when we see Max forced to flee or when we learn of Hans, Rosa and Rudy dying in the bombing.

We’ve come to expect and even applaud crassness coming out of Hollywood.  Everything in most films (both from yesterday and today) is simplistically explained away by demonstrating that there’s little difference between one human being and another and that one person is as bad as the next.  That may be why The Book Thief comes across somewhat as a dated film.  The makers of The Book Thief still believed in something besides self-involved characters who have little thought about anything but themselves. 

December 29, 2013

© Robert S. Miller 2013

JFK (1991): The Gullibility of Oliver Stone

It was fifty years ago today that John Fitzgerald Kennedy was assassinated.  I cannot say with one hundred percent accuracy that Lee Harvey Oswald was the gunman, but Oswald’s behavior during the relevant time period was suspicious.  For example, sending a note that he intended to “blow up” the FBI just a few weeks before Kennedy was killed or within an hour after the assassination fatally shooting a Dallas patrolman by the name of J.D. Tippit.

So we come to Oliver Stone’s 189 minute JFK – released to theatres almost 28-years after the assassination that brings us no closer to an understanding as to what happened on November 22, 1963.  I’ve heard many commentators in the past weeks speak of the Kennedy shooting as the “end of innocence” in America.  Stone obviously subscribes to such a theory seeing that he holds John F. Kennedy in such esteem.  However, Stone does the fallen president no favors with his fairy-tale depiction of what occurred.  In Stone’s mind, there would have been no Vietnam fiasco had Kennedy lived, corporations would have been kept in check and never profited from the war, and there would have been transparency concerning security agencies like the FBI and CIA.  Oliver Stone appears to believe he can speak of credibility and the search for truth while at the same time fudging the facts.

 The action in the movie revolves around New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison’s 1966 investigation of the assassination.  I’m not sure what Garrison (played by Kevin Costner) would have made of Stone’s film.  Seeing that Garrison was so skeptical of the Warren Commission’s report, what would he have felt about a film that theorizes that it could have been LBJ, Castro, J. Edgar Hoover, the Mob, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secret Service or any number of CIA agents directing what occurred? 

In Stone’s retelling, Garrison was a good family man whose zeal for locating the truth upsets his wife Liz (Sissy Spacek) and many of his own staff.   The media members, who obviously must be in on the conspiracy, ruthlessly attack Garrison for his wasting of taxpayer money.  Some witnesses refuse to testify.  One witness dies (though not before telling Garrison about a CIA Operation nicknamed “Operation Mongoose).  Yet conversations with the mysterious man named X (Donald Sutherland) convince Garrison that he is on the right track.  It all eventually leads to the trial of Clay Shaw (Tommy Lee Jones) that takes place in 1969.

The closest we come to hearing about what happened is Garrison’s theory that there were three gunmen at Dealey Plaza, and six shots were fired instead of the three cited in the Warren report.  Though jury members allegedly believed a conspiracy occurred, they acquitted Shaw of all charges because not enough evidence existed to connect him.

While I know it was not intentional on the part of Stone, even if the courtroom scenes in JFK were accurately depicted I would have gone along with the jury in acquitting Shaw as well.  I wouldn’t have come away convinced that there was proof of a conspiracy.  Even for those that have not followed one of the most written about happenings in American history, this film does not convince.  How would Garrison or X ever have known or demonstrated all that they claim to have been true?

The film is just too long to be entertaining, but I wouldn’t be much taken with the movie in any case.  For mere movie viewing, the courtroom scene is probably the best portion of the film.  Garrison has a field day discussing the magic bullet theory (in the film), which apparently the real Jim Garrison never addressed in the actual trial.  And while Garrison keeps repeating how Kennedy’s head goes back and to the left to the jury during showings of the Zapruder film, he sort of neglects to mention that Kennedy’s head also at one point goes forward.

We have quite the impressive cast for a film that doesn’t succeed.  Besides those we have already mentioned, we have Gary Oldman as Oswald, Kevin Bacon as a male prostitute and witness, Ed Asner as an FBI agent, and Joe Pesci as  David Ferrie (the co-conspirator who dies before he can be a witness for Garrison).

John F. Kennedy exuded optimism while in the Oval Office that is sadly missed.  Some would say that optimism was the part of the innocence that was lost that day.  However, we can’t mistake the naiveté and faked earnestness of someone like Stone for the real innocence that we need. 

Kennedy presumably demonstrated toughness when facing down Khrushchev.  He likely was very shrewd in picking Lyndon Johnson to be his Vice-President – who according to Stone may have had Kennedy killed.  (Without Johnson, Kennedy may never have been President.)  He may have been timid in not further pursuing civil rights legislation – most of which only came into being when Johnson took office.  He also may have begun the escalation of America’s presence in Vietnam.  Presidents always have been and probably always will be complicated characters with a mixture of virtues and flaws.

November 22, 2013

© Robert S. Miller 2013

ON THE WATERFRONT (1954): And Elia Kazan

I had always felt that the merits of On the Waterfront were overstated by the critics when they would refer to it as one of the greatest films ever.  I thought that even other movies by director Elia Kazan such as A Streetcar Named Desire, East of Eden or even A Face in the Crowd was better.  However, though more sentimental than these other films, watching On the Waterfront again made me think that this particular film is likely better than Kazan’s other movies upon reviewing and stands the test of time in a better fashion.

On the Waterfront is a surprisingly simple story as the film is only 108 minutes long.  Terry Malloy (Marlon Brando) witnesses the killing of Joey Doyle who is rumored to be speaking to the feds about corruption in the labor union for dock workers.  Malloy’s own brother, Charlie (Rod Steiger), works for the mob boss, Johnny Favor (Lee J. Cobb).  Another dockworker, Kayo Dugan (Pat Henning), also speaks to the feds about dock conditions and also gets killed.

Terry’s conscience is sore.  To complicate matters, Terry also falls in love with the sister of the Joey Doyle, Edie (Eva Marie Saint).  Edie has also been speaking to Father Barry (Karl Malden) and together they both try to convince Terry that he should testify as to what happened.  Charlie tries to convince Terry in the famous taxicab scene that he needs to stay away from Edie and to not testify against Johnny.  However, instead of convincing Terry to not testify he hints that Terry’s life in trouble.  This results in Charlie being killed.  Though Terry at first wants to murder Johnny, Father Barry convinces Terry to testify.  Terry’s testimony eventually leads to Johnny Favor losing his power with the union.  Terry walks onto the docks bloodied up by Johnny’s goons, but they are unable to stop him from going to work.

The movie owes its reputation greatly to the acting of Brando.   The film may have been too syrupy with anyone else in the lead.  Malden, like in so many other films he is in, comes across as a tad bit self-righteous.  Eva Marie Saint is good as the love interest as she perfectly portrays innocence, but this is a coming of age film for men.  Brando, Lee J. Cobb and Rod Steiger play the important roles in the film and play their macho roles wonderfully.  (It’s also a film with three former heavyweights, Tony Galento, Abe Simon and Tami Mauriello, all who were knocked out by Joe Louis.) We can all talk about the score or the film lighting for this movie.  However, it’s the story and the acting of Brando that give it significance.

My ambivalence to this film probably always will go back to it being directed by Kazan.  Kazan and the screenwriter for On the Waterfront, Budd Schulberg, testified for the House Un-American Activities Committee, and both named names.  The two former Communists turned against other in Hollywood.  Kazan gave at least eight names to the HUAC.

I watched a documentary the other night about Kazan and there were all sorts of excuses for why Kazan took the actions that he did.  One actress who had starred in East of Eden stated it was not her place to judge.  Though most can probably appreciate her sentiment, I’m guessing those that were named had a slightly different take.

On the Waterfront is sometimes referred to as Kazan’s response to his critics who claimed he should never have testified.  If this is true it does seem like a rather odd defense.  In On the Waterfront the little guys’ livelihoods were being threatened with extinction if they testified rather than conformed.  In the HUAC hearings, the little guys were being testified against and having their careers ruined just for being named.  Those making up the HUAC and the mob bosses were not so very different.

The weakest segment of On the Waterfront is towards the end where we have the farcical fight scene between Terry and Johnny Favors.  In almost all of Kazan’s films he does not know how to finish the movie up well.  Still, On the Waterfront holds up even with this ending perhaps due to the simplicity of the story.  The scenes between Brando and Eva Marie Saint show real tenderness.  And there’s grittiness that, along with the acting of Brando, will make the movie remembered.  Perhaps the whole film doesn’t quite fit together because Kazan was trying in the end to put his thumb on the scales.

© Robert S. Miller 2013

THE MAN WHO WOULD BE KING (1975): Filming of Great Kipling Story

The Man Who Would Be King is one of those few film renderings of a great short story that is also worth seeing upon the screen.  The 129 minute movie succeeds because of the story, the acting of Michael Caine as Peachey Carnehan and Sean Connery as Daniel Dravot, and the direction of John Huston.  It is one of the best adventure movies ever filmed.  Carnehan and Dravot are scoundrels, but one understands that they lived more deeply than we ever will.  At the same time the film contains a warning: we as a people cannot improve upon the lives of others by dictating how others should live.

Former English soldiers Carnehan and Dravot have many get-rich schemes.  They are pickpockets, blackmailers, gun-runners and devout Free Masons.  They swindle their ways through life and are willing to take great risks in the improving of their fortune.  They decide to head to a country called Kafiristan to make themselves kings.  Through brashness and a series of larks they come very close to succeeding.  They cross the Khyber Pass, ford a dangerous river and steal mules from Afghan bandits.  They then wander through the Hindu Kush and arrive in Kafiristan to an area where no white man had gone since the time of Alexander the Great.  An arrow stopped by Dravot’s bandolier convinces the natives that the two white men have tumbled from the heavens.  That Dravot is wearing a Masonic symbol introduced to the people by Alexander the Great convinces them further that Dravot is the son of Sikander (Alexander the Great) – in other words a god.

Through their adventures they meet up with Billy Fish (Saeed Jaffrey), a transplanted Indian who had survived an avalanche that killed an English party, and he becomes Carnehan and Dravot’s cohort and translator.  We also meet Kafiristan native, Roxanne (Shakira Caine – Michael Caine’s real-life wife), who Dravot becomes smitten with (despite his agreement with Carnehan that they would keep away from the temptations of women).  While Carnehan is still intent on robbing Kafiristan of its plunder and then returning to the west, Dravot begins suffering from delusions that he is a god and that his destiny is to remain the ruler of Kafiristan. 

Two things happen to thwart their plans: the high priest of Kafiristan, Kafu Selim (Karroom Ben Bouih) believes Dravot could be a god, but remains suspicious.  Also, because of native superstition, Roxanne is afraid to marry Dravot out of fear she will go up in flames on their wedding night.  She bites Dravot while they are about to marry, Dravot bleeds, the high priest proclaims that gods don’t bleed, and Dravot is forced to cross a rope bridge that is then cut and plunges to his death.   Carnehan in turn in crucified on a tree, but he survives to return to India to tell his story to Kipling (Christopher Plummer).

The Man Who Would Be King was written in 1886, but its lesson is still not heard.  Kipling was torn for the love of the English soldier, his on and off belief that the English were in some manner superior, and his deeper conviction (that does manifest itself in his best work like the story The Man Who Would Be King) that western man with its politics, religion, education and culture had become far too sure of itself to leave other people alone. 

This film is not escapism.  There are many moving, funny and powerful scenes in this film.  We come to admire Carnehan and Dravot for their audacity, but we all along know that they would also meet their doom.   The film imparts a sense of mystery in that it tells us we don’t always understand what drives on other men.  I watch the film once or maybe twice a year because I cannot convince myself that movies like The Lone Ranger or all the endless sequels are really the best we can do in film.  Compared to what Hollywood is tossing out as a message, the antics of Carnehan and Dravot are refreshing.

July 27, 2013

© Robert S. Miller 2013