Goya's dark, symbolic etchings

I had a surprise treat at the art museum the other day. There was an exhibit of Francisco de Goya's aquatints/etchings displayed and the surprise was that I was into a lot of them! I've never thought of myself as a big Goya fan. When I think of him, I usually only think of his painting The Third of May 1808. That is one striking painting, in the way where you feel almost a physical reaction to it. I feel like the wind has been knocked out of me when I look at it.

So that's the feeling I had about Goya when going into this. I thought "Here we go". Stepping into the first room, I was shocked to see how tiny many of the etchings were. Some were made by other artists, and were probably there to show how their work compared with or inspired Goya. One piece was so tiny, it must have been no larger than a business card! There were little magnifying glasses out for us to use, so we could see all the tiny details.

Most of the Goya pieces were larger, probably something like 8x10" or 11x14". I feel like I've seen this one somewhere before, maybe online. It's titled The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters and was made in 1798-98. Actually, all of the pieces you're going to see here were made at that time.

When I looked at this, I was struck with a thought I often have: "They were drawing things like this back then?" Which is probably pretty silly. Because, why wouldn't they be? There's really no reason for someone not to be creating art like this in the late 1700s, it's just surprising to me for whatever reason.

Check out all the wild creatures behind the man! There are owls, that black cat perched behind him, lots and lots of bats, and whatever that creepy feline is that's lounging on the floor. Sort of a googly-eyed lynx? That critter is the weirdest of them all. The man in this etching is actually a self-portrait of Goya, himself.

According to the information next to this piece, the animals symbolize "folly, ignorance, and evil". I don't know about the folly and ignorance, but I'm seeing the evil. The written information goes on to say that this art suggests "the contrast between reason and superstition". So when reason takes a nap, folly, ignorance, and evil come out to play. Without this description, I would have seen this as a portrait of a man having a nightmare.

This next one, Here comes the Bogeyman, is another that seems really modern to me. I guess people have been playing in the same ways forever really.

This one would be kind of cute, if it was just the person in the sheet and the adult woman looking kind of amused/pretending to be afraid. But the kids! OK, one looks petrified and that other little gremlin... That kid is scarier than whatever is under the sheet. Woo!

Hush reminds me a lot of that scene in Disney's Snow White when the Evil Queen/Wicked Witch is creeping around in her cloak getting ready to give Snow White the poison apple. Although, I'm not really sure who the devious one is here. This scene looks sinister all around.

Now, this last one! This genuinely creeps me out. I'm not even sure why. OK, the title is probably a good part of it. It's titled Don't Scream, Stupid. Not the kind of title you expect in the late 1700s, right?

I don't even know where to begin with what's going on here or why it disturbs me so much. Are these evil, floating gnomes? And why does that woman look like she's smiling in a surprised sort of way, given this title?

Wanting some answers, I looked up Los Caprichos, which is the name of a series of 80 aquatints and etchings that these are a part of.

Here's the Wikipedia page for Los Caprichos: Los Caprichos Wiki

Every one of the 80 pieces is shown on the Wiki page. I warn you that some of these are fairly dark. I chose to only photograph the ones I thought were cool and spooky, in that way where they look like they're illustrating a fairy tale. Some of the others are dark and disturbing in a realistic way.

Goya's intention with Los Caprichos was to show what he took issue with in Spanish society. It turns out this series was a little too scathing of the culture, especially that of the church, because Goya had to withdraw the series soon after presenting it. He later wrote that he withdrew the Los Caprichos because of the Inquisition.

I'm interested to hear anyone's thoughts on the etchings here or on the Wiki page. I haven't found much information about the meaning of these as individual pieces, just people analyzing the collection as a whole.

This is somewhat unrelated, but I picked up an interesting book at the library a few days ago. Villains, Scoundrels, and Rogues:

Sounds intriguing, doesn't it? I found this book accidentally while sitting on the library floor, between some bookshelves. I was sitting down, looking through my purse for my keys, library card, etc. and glanced over to see this. This book looks nearly pristine and I think that's in part because you'd have to sit on the floor to see it! It's kind of funny to put a row of books that low to the ground, if you'd like anyone to run into them. Anyway, how could I pass up a title like this? Have any of you read this one? I've only paged through the contents so far. The book is split into three sections, one for the villains, one for the scoundrels, and one for the rogues.

The names I recognize in the villains section are pretty intense. Those wouldn't be good bedtime stories! The scoundrels look like random and kind of wacky characters. The person who stands out to me in that section is "Squirrel Tooth Alice". I'll probably skip right to her story. As for the rogues, they're sounding like something off that show American Greed.

This book should make for some good summertime reading! Not that it's technically summer yet, even if it feels like it! But you know what I mean, it has those juicy, drama-filled, dangerous kind of stories. And they're all true! I'll let you guys know what I think of this book after giving it a read.

My thoughts on Burnt Offerings

I just finished reading the book Burnt Offerings today and am up for discussing it! I know I said in the last blog post that this one would be about Cedarburg, but I'm doing some research about the town and its buildings first. This time I will be adding a little history to my photos.

So, onto Burnt Offerings. How about that cover? It's intriguing, right?

My Burnt Offerings adventure began when I watched the movie version of it a month or so ago. I saw it being advertised on the Comet channel as a movie coming up. Do you guys get Comet? It's a channel that plays old B-movies and Sci-Fi stuff mostly. It's good for a laugh and the occasional scare. If you'd like to get a glimpse into the kind of channel I'm talking about here:

Comet TV schedule 

So, Comet did a somewhat funny ad for the movie version of Burnt Offerings and I was intrigued. I always like a good haunted house story. But Comet being Comet, they only said the movie would be playing some time that month without giving an exact date and time. So I ended up renting it from the library.

The first thing I noticed before watching Burnt Offerings was that an older Burgess Meredith and Bette Davis were in it! I went in to the movie expecting to enjoy watching them and they did not disappoint. They were both perfect in their roles. But beyond that, I had some issues with the stiff acting in this movie. Actually, I had issues with the movie in general. I don't want to give too much away, but I don't think I will by saying that Burnt Offerings was disjointed in parts and not believable to me. I don't expect to believe in every event in a supernatural thriller, but I need to believe in the characters. If I don't think a person would act like what I'm watching, or if I can't connect with the characters,  it's hard for me to get into the movie as it goes along. I cared about Bette Davis' character (Aunt Elizabeth) but that's about it.

Watch out Bette!

OK, really quickly and with no spoilers... A couple (Marian and Ben) their son David and Ben's Aunt Elizabeth are staying for a few months of the summer in what is basically a run down mansion. They were looking for a place to get away, so when they read an ad for this place, which is of course way, way, way out in the middle of nowhere, their interest was piqued.

When they go to check out this big house, they meet an eccentric couple of siblings, who they'll be renting it from. One of these siblings is played by Burgess Meredith, who is hamming up his four minutes in this film big time. It was a highlight.

These two siblings offer Marian and Ben the house for the summer at an unbelievable rate. However, Ben assumes there must be a catch! The catch is, Marian and Ben must look after Mrs. Allardyce, the siblings' mother.

They are told that they must bring Mrs. Allardyce meals of food on a tray and leave it outside her bedroom door three times per day, every day they are there. The siblings tell the couple that they probably won't see Mrs. Allardyce. They say she is a frail 85 year old and just keeps to herself. OK, here is my major complaint (of many) with this movie. Why, oh why, would this couple not ask to meet Mrs. Allardyce before accepting this offer? They're willing to sign on to spend a summer taking care of a giant house and an old lady they haven't met?

Yeah, that's the house.

Well, Marian and Ben take the offer and move in for the summer. Keeping this spoiler free, let's just say things do not go well. There is a supernatural bent to this, and taking care of "Mrs. Allardyce" is the bad idea it sounds like. I'll also say that I'm 50/50 on the end of the movie. There is one moment at the end that is super for a ghost story and gives me the creeps as I think of it now. But then there is a lot of gratuitous gore, that just leaves you asking "Why?"

I listened to the commentary on this DVD, mainly to give someone a chance to explain why they went the way they did with that ending. The commentary was done by the director, the producer, and Karen Black who played Marian. Karen Black was a nice sounding woman with some stories she remembered from filming this. Here's one that stood out: there's a moment when Oliver Reed, the man who plays her husband Ben in this, keeps turning her away from the camera. It happened again and again, so only the back of her head showed, while he faced the camera. She decided that he wanted to be the only one getting camera time! So, eventually Karen Black asked him to stop so the audience could see her as well and his response was to say nothing and angrily stomp off for some time. And here, I thought their fighting in this movie was an act!

Are we having fun yet?

One thing made clear over and over on the commentary was how the director, Dan Curtis and Karen Black thought the Burnt Offerings book was the most boring thing ever and that this movie was a vast improvement on it. They said they couldn't remember a bit of the book, except for the ending which leaves you wondering what even happened. Well, considering how much I disliked a good part of the end of their movie, I decided to give the book a go. I figured "It can't be worse!" Well, guess what? The book was a ton better! I actually found myself being angry at those on the DVD commentary because of the wrong idea they gave. We're all free to have a different opinion on a book, but why would Dan Curtis want to produce and direct a movie based on a book that he found so forgettable? And why would some dialogue in the book and movie match word for word, if he spaced the whole thing? I actually felt lied to by a DVD commentary, which is pretty strange.

Burnt Offerings the book, by Robert Marasco, was so much more detailed and sensical. I understood the characters and their motives. Events were explained and wrapped up in ways that weren't even attempted in the movie. I liked the characters more and cared about what would happen to them. And far from boring, it was the kind of book that kept me up late at night, quickly turning the pages. Oh, and the end was completely clear! Much more clear than the end of the movie! You even get an explanation for the title in the book. I can only think the people on that DVD commentary were on some kind of ego trip, saying their movie was so superior. After finishing the book today, I wanted to get a time machine so I could go back and somehow get involved with the movie production and make the movie more true to form!

So, meh on the movie, but I recommend reading the book! But just so you know, this isn't a cheer-fest. This story is dark, but it makes you think. It makes you think about materialism and the priority money/things are for some people. In that way, it was a good follow-up to reading Jaws for me. Another book from the 70s that is about materialism and money being some people's main goal, even above their family and friends. Come to think of it, in both stories, some people die because of one person's greed.

An interesting piece of trivia is that Stephen King loves this book. Burnt Offerings was published in 1973 and The Shining was published in 1977. That's something to keep in mind when you notice how much these two stories have in common! (I'm talking about the book version of the Shining more than the movie.) I think Stephen King was pretty heavily inspired! Actually, I just looked that up and read that he was admittedly inspired. The Shining is much scarier to me, though.

So, have any of you read or watched Burnt Offerings? Or maybe both? I'd like to discuss the differences between the two with you guys. Some people say Burnt Offerings was the scariest movie they'd ever seen. I was only scared by that one moment I liked at the end, but the book had me on the edge of my seat. I'd call it a supernatural thriller more than a horror novel, though.

Speaking of the book, I took a few photos inside of it, to take you guys on a trip down memory lane. Well, this first one will probably take you down memory lane. Looks like after 1990, the librarian was scanning the books instead of stamping them. Either that, or no one has checked this out since 1990! I'm trying to remember when they stopped stamping them. You know, I kind of miss the date stamp. It seemed official somehow. 😉

This second photo goes with an older set of memories. Look at all these suggestions for what you could find at the library!

Phonograph Records! I wonder what kind of Government Documents they're talking about. And Sheet Music! I think you can still order that through the library, actually.

As I said before, I'll be working on that Cedarburg post. I picked up a few books about that town and have been enjoying looking at pics of it from the Civil War times! It's mind-blowing to look at photos of buildings from the 1800s that look the same today. To think, I've stood where a horse and buggy can be seen in some of these photos. So, I'll be researching and writing and hope to be sharing that one soon!

Ba-dum Ba-dum

Check out what I found on the lakeshore recently!

It's probably a piece of ceramic (note the cracks) but at first I thought it was a tooth. I can't decide if the front or back looks more tooth-like.

This was a fun find, because I was reading JAWS during the time I found it. So, finding it on the sand, I immediately thought "shark tooth!" Nevermind that we don't have sharks around here.

Finding this "tooth" was as fun as that time I found a piece of creepy wood that looked just like the one I'd seen in The Fog! Also, that femur-like piece of wood. A reminder: The rocks have teeth!

JAWS was the book I brought along on our trip to Colorado. I read about one page on the way out there, but polished off quite a bit on the way home.

When I took the book out of my carry-on bag, I noticed something had pierced a hole through multiple pages of it! It could have been a pen I was carrying or some feathers I was bringing home. I wasn't even all that annoyed, because I thought it was fitting for this book. It looks like it survived a shark attack.

Chomp! Chomp!

I'll try to leave a relatively spoiler-free review of this book. I really liked it and recommend reading it. There isn't a boring moment. The book is far more complex than the movie, which I watched after finishing the book. The characters in the book have so many more dimensions and are far less likable than they are in the movie. That's part of what kept the pages turning. I kept wondering "Are they really going to do that?" (For the most part, yes they are)

Actually, the only man I did like in the book was the police chief (Brody). He wasn't perfect, but he did the absolute best a person could do in his situation. And he recognized his flaws and tried to work through them. I found him very sympathetic. I can't say I really liked any women in this book. The woman who was closest to being likable was an old lady who works in the post office, and she just rants about the shark being God's wrath. So yeah, there weren't any likable female characters here. In fact, when I saw that the police chief's wife was going to be in the movie, I was disappointed. I couldn't stand her character in the book! Turns out I didn't need to worry, because she was cool in the movie.

As for Hooper the scientist, he was awful in the book too! In the movie he's a funny, friendly guy you want to hang out. It's like night and day. That's no accident. I read that Steven Spielberg asked Richard Dreyfuss not to read JAWS, because he didn't want him to act at all like the scientist in the book. Spielberg was even less forgiving than I am about the characters in the JAWS book. I read that he didn't like a one of them and found himself rooting for the shark!

Now, I didn't want Jaws to eat everyone in the book, just most of the characters! I was seriously thinking "I could make a list of who could be shark-bait in this story". But you don't always get the justice you're looking for in this one. And I think that was part of the point. The author drove home that this is a fish that is purely an eating machine. The shark doesn't have human emotions, and he's not evil. It's hard not to think of the shark as a villain, but he's really just a shark being a shark. And if you think about the shark like that, it's truly terrifying. You can't reason with this creature; it will eat you if you're nearby. It's a seemingly random story about people who are in the water at the wrong time. Although, I will say Jaws seems to have far more strategies than I would expect a shark to have. 

JAWS is a book that deals with class divisions, status symbols, status in general, greed, jealousy, and money, money, money. I guess that's what all those things fall under really: money. There are characters in this book whose priorities are way out of whack, at least in my opinion. Money, or the amount of money they appear to have is way more important to them than other people. This book is so relevant now. I wonder if it's even more relevant today than it was when it was written?

I also wondered about the author, Peter Benchley and where he was coming from. I expected him to be a lot like the police chief character he'd written, an average enough guy who is around a lot of snobs, and therefore sensitive to snobbery. I was surprised to read that the author grew up spending his summers on Nantucket Island and went to Harvard. I was confused, because he had the kind of background the unsavory characters in his book had. But then I gave it some thought and decided that made sense in a way. Chances are pretty good he met some people who were into money and status along the way. So he had chances to observe a certain type of person, the type of person he clearly didn't admire!

I can't help noticing that I made the same kind of prejudgements on the author as some of the characters in his book made. It's probably natural to take a little bit of information about a person and assume a whole lot more. JAWS was messing with me, because I was constantly making judgements about characters based on a little information and then changing my mind. For instance, a character I thought I'd like because of his views on animals, the environment, and education turned out to be a self-centered sleazebag. And a character who had completely opposite views from mine on every issue in the book, turned out to have some common sense know-how and problem solving skills I admired. So reading this was stretching my brain. It was just another reminder not to prejudge people too quickly, or assume someone is a great person because you agree on many issues, or assume there are no admirable qualities in someone you don't agree with.

So in the middle of all this social commentary hitting you over the head like a brick, and a few dysfunctional relationships, a shark sometimes swims through the story and eats people. The book is way more about how these people relate than it is about a shark. The shark seems to be in the book as a catalyst for these people to interact for better or worse (mostly worse). Sometimes the characters are awfully shark-like themselves. There are a few predators! As I mentioned before, Steven Spielberg didn't like the people in this book, but he did think the shark was cool. So he decided to take the third and final part of this book and center his movie around that. The shark became the star.

After reading JAWS, I picked up the movie version of it from the library. The DVD I watched must have been watched a lot, because it kept cutting out. Those interruptions cut down on the suspense, but I still saw enough that I could piece the story together. The DVD case had a shiny coating, which gave it this watery effect. It was a special 30th anniversary edition. Much like my book, this DVD cover looks like it was attacked by a shark!

So, JAWS the movie was fun. I found it less scary than the book, maybe because it kept cutting out or maybe because the book was more scary. The book certainly was more descriptive! Sometimes a little too descriptive. Woo! They would have needed some new kind of rating for this movie if they showed everything in that book. Gore-city!

Anyway, the movie has some humor added in the way Spielberg does it. The only humorous parts in the book were parts I'm not even sure were supposed to be humorous. Maybe they just were to me. But you can tell the movie is supposed to be funny in parts. It's pretty light and fun for a killer shark movie. I liked all the characters in the movie, except for that smarmy mayor. There are so many more layers to him in the book and you find some sympathy for him there. But in the movie, he's pretty much one dimensional smarm.

Would you trust a man wearing that anchor jacket?

The police chief, the scientist, and the sea dog (Quint) are a group of guys you could comfortably crack open a beer with on a boat. It is so not that way in the book! Oh man, Quint in the book! I think the shark is more tame. Seriously, that man had some issues in the book. But in the movie, he's more fun-crazy, sings old piratey type songs, and tells tales on the boat. Quint's character in the movie gets as close to any of that regular guy vs. rich guy banter, but that doesn't really amount to much of anything. Oh, and if you think the book ends like the movie, nope!

So, if you want to get scared, read the book. If you want to have some fun and get a few scares, watch the movie. And if you want to get a whole lot of laughs, watch Jaws the Musical! I found some clips of that on YouTube. What a riot! Here's a little sampling from one theater group's show.

Chrissie's Last Swim:

Link: Chrissie's Last Swim video

Hehe. I think it's pretty clever how they made the "water". I wondered how that could be shown on a stage.

I wish that shark was in the musical, but I think this might be one of Katy Perry's backup dancers. I just checked, and oh yeah. I remember that half-time show. 😊

So, I'm guessing most of you have watched the movie version of JAWS, but has anyone read the book? Or been on the Universal ride where you get up close and personal with the shark? Boy, is that a memory that will be part of me forever! If you'd like to get a quick glimpse of what I saw as a six-year-old when the shark came right up next to us, you can watch part of this 80s promotional video for Universal Studios in Hollywood. Skip to the 6:47 mark:

Link: JAWS ride in the 80s

I remember looking right down into his mouth. No wonder it took me this long to crack open the book or watch the movie! The shark and ride in general seems to have changed quite a bit from the videos I've watched online. I know it's gone altogether in Florida. Well, I look forward to discussing Jaws with you guys!

P.S. ~ Of all the days to read this Shark-related news item! Get a load of this:

Deputize the Shark!

That's right, a man escaped police by jumping into the ocean and then was followed by a shark. I think he was probably ready to be saved/arrested at that point!  

Wordless Halloween

Another hidden treasure of early instructional illustrations for the classroom. A wordless story of the traditional carving of the pumpkin from Before We Read by W.J Gage & Co. Limited. (page 24) printed in Canada. No date (perhaps circa 1950's?) - artist uncredited. 

(original book layout)

Bogie Books | Bogus Bindings

As a tip to new collectors, when able, consider this --- introduce yourself to certain items from a collector's stash before bidding and/or spending the big bucks on true vintage. If you don't have a local collector at hand, then looking around the market may offer other options: an antique store, an annual holiday/antique show, or an online venue. From personal experience, I madly craved celluloids for the amazing details; however, once I held (directly from a collector's shelf) these small objects with their seemingly light, fragile and generally dissatisfying material my yearning was tempered. I'm now content admiring most celluloid collectibles in photographs until the right opportunity.

Dennison's Bogie Book 11th Ed. (1923)

One collectable series (shown above) that offers an option for pre-collecting observation is the 1910's-1920's Dennison's Bogie Book (holiday idea booklets showcasing the manufacturer's product). While at this writing it's likely you can find scanned versions of these to peruse (sometimes on etsy) - there are others on ebay listing these in a printed softcover (different enough in quality, paper, etc., yet offering the original content). I got a 2nd hand batch of these, and they are enjoyable and informative while seeking deals on originals.

If you like what you've seen firsthand, wouldn't that then be the logical point to start collecting? Once you do start collecting Bogie Books, I would consider the following information below. (Note - I have added one point to my introduction list of reasons to write this blog --- #5 Question everything.)

Bogie Books were originally printed in softcover, yet there do exist library bound versions (as noted in collector guides). While it might seem logical that a hardcover is more valuable (with guides reflecting a hardcover valued at almost 3x the price), the Bogie Book example may not be normal for book collectors. As noted in Book Collecting: Illustrated glossary of terms, edition, & condition: "Lending libraries sometimes re-bind books into a heavier, more durable binding [...] which will stand up the heavy use to which library books are often subjected. [...] Collectors usually avoid library-bindings, since the book has been drastically altered." Therefore, you just may be getting a better deal buying less expensive softcover originals, over potentially mis-valued hardcovers.

Update 1-31-2016: It was recently proposed that some Bogie Book hardbacks may be trade editions due to the absence of library markings. Trade edition simply means an edition of a book offered for sale to the general public in book stores (wikipedia). Question --- would it follow logically that a book was sold in a book store because of absent markings? This would mean Dennison took a magazine-style catalog and turned it into a prebound book for book store sales. What is the evidence of this? In either case prebound is still an alternation of the original edition. One would continue to wonder if this destroys the value in either instance as stated above. But the great concern - if an original paperback and these prebound versions were undifferentiated by the publisher - who is to prevent anyone from creating fake "prebound" copies?

###