1. Western commentators see Africa as nothing but a really big Alabama. And most forget the ‘really big’ part.

2. I’m reading Frankenstein for school. It’s not my first time reading it, but it is my first time in a while. This time through is confirming my past assessment, which is that the film is much better.

Essentially, the entire plot of the book boils down to two factors:

First, that Victor Frankenstein never considers the idea that explaining “there is a savage and gigantic man who is my mortal enemy” does not require him to add “Also, I made him in my laboratory.”

Second, that the Monster never thinks of wearing a mask. The Phantom of the Opera could give him some pointers.

3. The film avoids these issues entirely by compressing the plot to a few days, keeping the Monster in a childlike state which renders his actions both more unpredictable and more sympathetic, while Frankenstein himself is less ‘stupidly self-centered to a staggering degree’ and more just overwhelmed by events.

That, and the book is page after page of Frankenstein whining about how miserable and tormented he is, when the whole thing happened because he couldn’t choke back his gag reflex for five minutes to actually attend to the creature he brought to life.

Movie!Frankenstein is irresponsible too, but in a more understandable and believable way, in that it’s clear he just never stopped to think of what would happen to the creature once it was made.

4. Regardless of my criticisms of the book, it’s still a much better read than A Separate Peace. It’s early 19th-century English prose by a woman intimately acquainted (in all senses of the term) with the literary giants of the day. Whatever you can say about the plot and characterization, the style is going to be top notch, and if you’re an American author of the 1950s whose name is not “Ray Bradbury” or “Flannery O’Connor”, you’re going to fall far short by comparison.

5. Movie night this week was Studio Ghibli’s City in the Sky. This was one the most perfectly crafted adventure stories I’ve ever seen, in terms of integrating the elements of adventure fiction: the journey from ordinary to extraordinary, the increasingly transcendent goal, the romance that runs parallel to the quest, the sense of discovery, the heroism, the wonder, it is all captured here as well as I’ve ever seen it. This is a template for how to make a good adventure story.

Now, individual elements may be done better in other films: Mark Hamill’s villain, for instance, isn’t a particularly memorable baddy compared to, say Belloc from Raiders of the Lost Ark. But in terms of the totality of an adventure story, I’ve very rarely seen one that exemplifies the genre as perfectly as this one.

6. Also read Animal Farm, which is going to be one of the books my students will be reading this year (honestly, I’d rather do Day in the Life of Ivan Dynesovich, but this is good too). I’ve read it more than once before and it’s a very easy read, so I knocked it out in less than a day.

What struck me this time was that, for all his criticism, Orwell still seems to think that Animal Farm was a good idea and would have worked if it weren’t for Napoleon. Though I suppose that’s really the question that the book doesn’t answer: was Napoleon’s tyranny inevitable, or was it a tragic fluke of history that ended the possibility of real revolution?

Myself, of course, I think the former, on the grounds that rule by an elite minority is unavoidable (it’s simply the nature of any community – indeed any composite object – to have a ruling principle) and the foundational ideology of Animal Farm would tend to give its ruling elite unchecked authority (the animals are sovereign > Napoleon rules on behalf of the animals > opposition to Napoleon is opposition to the animals > “Comrade Napoleon is always right”).

7. Democratic principles always concentrate power, and that for two reasons: first, there is a monopoly on authority. The people’s will alone is sovereign, and there is no higher law, so there is no limit to the authority of the people. Second, as noted, democracy is a lie: rule is always by a minority elite. To say that the people rule means only that the elite justify their rule as representing the will of the people. And since, as we’ve said, there is no natural limit to the authority of the people, there will be no limit on the authority of the ruling elites.

To put it another way, if the will of the people is the highest law, then the representative of the people can justify literally anything in their name.