Triscribe

Yesterday, I finished reading the medieval England book that I had mentioned previously in the blog. I enjoyed it, and had read the other book in the series back in January. Both books were good subway reading: “The Queen’s Man” and “Cruel as the Grave,” by Sharon Kay Penman (the books’ Amazon links refer to the paperback versions; the author’s official website looked nice, I think).

The series follows the adventures of 20-year old Justin de Quincey, the illegitimate son of the Bishop of Chester in England, in the years 1192 to 1193. In “The Queen’s Man,” Justin becomes (what else?) “The Queen’s Man,” serving the dowager queen of England, Eleanor of Aquitaine: Justin accidentally came across the murder of a loyalist of the queen. The loyalist had information on the capture of the queen’s son, the King Richard the Lionheart; Eleanor asks Justin to investigate the murder – was it to prevent the information from getting to the queen? Was it because the victim had a nutty family who contracted the murderer to do it; or because of something else entirely? Meanwhile, Justin becomes entangled in the craziness that is medieval England, with spies and other double agents. Who shall he trust? Prince John, Richard’s brother, also makes an appearance and hovers in the background; he is apparently the bane of his family, and has his issues about his family (probably a parallel to Justin’s issues with his father; neither man seems to get it that maybe their respective parent isn’t as horrible as they believe).

“Cruel as the Grave” takes place a month later; Justin’s settling nicely in London, and the Queen’s assigning him to get a message to John, who’s trying to keep himself inside Windsor Castle to make a point. Meanwhile, Justin is trying to solve who murdered a 15-year old girl, whose only crime was that she fell in love with someone outside her class – and would this be the reason for her murder?

As mysteries go, “Cruel as the Grave” was a stronger one than “The Queen’s Man” – although the case there was easy to solve (I thought), at least one gets to watch Justin be the detective. “The Queen’s Man” seemed more like an unfolding coincidence, even though there were plenty of suspects; Justin seems to have incidentally figured out the situation. But, both are good yarns, as one follows along Justin’s journeys. The characters come alive, and don’t feel anachronistic at all. And, the context feels right – Penman notes how the Saxons spoke English and the Normans spoke French (and thus the upper crust spoke French), and yet she doesn’t bog down on “thou” or “thee” or whatnot. Justin is also a sweet protagonist, even when he acts tough. Not perfect, he matures in each situation he gets himself into.

Penman clearly did her research and I like her style. Yeah, so she’s an ex-tax attorney, but she has an imagination that works nicely.

Other reading? Note the following:

NY Times article on the Chinatown vans was educational , so to speak.

NY Times on the impending odd NYS election; getting ready for Super Tuesday?

NY1 (the all-news tv cable station) has an interesting series on academia, 50 years after Brown v. Board of Education.

‘American Idol’ Reject Idolized by Web (AP)

William Hung, a Real American Idol

OK, so he’s not that good of a singer, but he’s got moxie, and if he can show up Simon, more power to him!

Some articles or news of note:

ABA E-Journal’s latest humorous anecdotes about the legal profession.

While the post-mortem on the Dean campaign has been going on, writer Paul Gastris in his NY Times op-ed illustrates an obituary for the Wesley Clark campaign. I thought Clark had brought a certain edge to the 2004 campaign (“ooh, a general! Cool!”), but his inexperience proved to have been his undoing.

Bill Moyers is apparently leaving “Now” on PBS, after the election, to write a book on his experiences working for President Lyndon B. Johnson. Darn sad; Moyers made me appreciate a lot of stories that I wouldn’t have thought heard or thought about and he made me re-appreciate old fashioned liberalism with his respectful yet charged tone of voice. Hopefully PBS won’t turn away from “Now” (which won’t be the same without Moyers, although David Brancaccio as co-host has been nice watch, at least to help ease the burden on Moyers), but we’ll see how this goes.

NY Times’ report on the impending subway changes, effective 12:01 am, Sunday, Feb. 22, 2004. Pro: N-line will be on the Manhattan Bridge, ending an almost 20-year detour in the tunnels between Court St. Whitehall stations, and the B and D lines will be back in Brooklyn. Con: B will be on the old D-line and D will be on the old B-line. According to the article, the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) recognizes that the old-time Brooklynites will be confused that the B will be on the old D-line and the D will be on the B-line, but claims that the short-term confusion will be fine (and, yeah, I’ve mentioned in a previous blog entry that I grew up back when the B was the B and the D was the D – and that was just less than five years ago). In fact, MTA allegedly has an explanation for why the planners couldn’t put the lines back together again in Brooklyn, the article notes:

“One of the most controversial aspects is the swapping of the old B and D lines, with their return to Brooklyn. Many residents remember growing up near the lines and will have to remember the switch.

“In the end, this was a decision based mostly on trying to simplify things, planners said. The B train in the Bronx currently runs only during the weekdays because of station rehabilitation work along the route and less demand. Planners decided that they wanted to connect this to the weekday-only line in Brooklyn. Planners conceded that they could have simply switched the designation in the Bronx, but they decided that would only confuse riders there.”

So, why is it that it is not worthwhile to confuse the riders of south Bronx, but okay to confuse the 4 million Brooklynites? Huh? (yeah, I don’t know how many people in the south Bronx take the B and D, so anyone may feel free to correct any of my misconceptions; but I still feel that the switch in Brooklyn is still an outrage). And, what about the immigrant populations of the Midwood/Brighton Beach lines (the old D line) and Bensonhurst (the old B line), forget the English-speaking population? I’d sit on the W subway (which substituted the B in Brooklyn the past three years or so), and I’d still hear Cantonese-Chinese speakers refer it as the (gasp!) B. Where’s the simplification in this?

I mean no offense to the MTA, really and my views are entirely my own and not representative of anyone else’s; I’ll quietly adjust to the N changes from where I am to get to work, but I’m just still baffled about why the switch on the B and D. End of rant.

In a previous blog, I discussed the virtues of the Travelocity commercial and the Gnome. Much to my amusement, it turned out that I one-upped the Slate.com “Ad Report,” as it too has recently commented on the Travelocity ad campaign. (well, I was wondering when Slate.com was going to get to the subject of the Gnome anyway). Slate.com “Ad Report” writer Seth Stevenson gave it a B-minus, because he figured that the Gnome can only go so far (umm, creatively, that is). Stevenson has a point, but in the meantime, I still think it’s a cute ad campaign. Oh, and he notes an explanation for why Travelocity gave Bill the Gnome a British accent (although I still prefer my “Full Monty” theory).

Ok, ok. Time to go…