True Diary - A True Review

The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-time Indian
By Sherman Alexie
Illustrated by Ellen Forney
A Review by Ernest M. Whiteman III


I have just finished reading Sherman Alexie’s best book ever.

It had taken me just under four hours, on and off throughout the afternoon and evening. I just could not stop reading this marvelous short novel, written for young adults, from the moment I picked it up. I want my wife to read it, that is how good it is. So good I immediately began writing this review on the el train ride home after work.

Praise coming from me may not mean much to accomplished author Sherman Alexie but I must say that "True Diary" is better than most books I have read within the last year (Better than "Deathly Hallows", which I also loved. But "Three Kingdoms" is still my overall favorite). The last few books that I have read straight through were Harry Potter’s 4 through 6, and Bradbury’s "Fahrenheit 451" which I read in one night in about 2 and a half hours (And still remains at the top of my favorite books list.) and was my tenth reading of the book.

"True Diary" is the story of awkward Spokane teen Arnold Spirit Junior and his attempts to fit in to a society that constantly rejects him for being different. That society is the Spokane Indian tribe after Arnold decides to go to the local town school of Readon High, off the reservation, after seeing that his reservation’s school’s geometry book has his mother’s name in it. What follows is Arnold coming to grips with "betraying" his tribe, fighting to fit in at the all-white school and his triumphs and tragedies with his tribe and reservation.

Alexie paints a compelling portrait of Native life by drawing on his own childhood experiences. Alexie, like Arnold, was an awkward teen, born with Hydrocephalus, and attended an all-white high school off the reservation. Alexie does not sugar-coat the problems Arnold faces on and off the reservation, which is surprising for a book aimed at young adults, nor does his drown it in grief-porn. Alexie has come to the same conclusion that I have about young kids, take away the adult-child dynamic of our interactions with children and we will be surprised about what they know, have opinions on, and can take in terms of their view of the world.

Alexie was mixed up in a racially-charged moment of his own recently when he spoke to high school kids at Naperville North High School. But I felt he took too much of the blame as he was just relating a story about his own experiences. That story is in the book and it is offensive in every way but Alexie’s words make the incident relatable. At least to me. Alexie is just interacting with the students as fellow people and not sugar-coating racism. But that is just my opinion. Alexie knew a lot of students can stand it and they did.

What is most precious to me about this book is that evokes my own times on my reservation, the people, the attitudes, the circumstances. Though I was never a smart Indian that took a chance at something better. I opted to remain on the Wind River because what other options were truly presented to me? Plus, I felt that a family connection was more important and that remains so to me today. This book reminded me of the people and times and environment that I left behind when I finally left the reservation eight years ago. It is a bittersweet read.

The story weaves through many of the troubles Arnold has fitting in among whites and being rejected by his tribe and it culminates in true young adult novel style in the "Important Basketball Game" that climaxes the book. But the pay-off, while standard, the reactions to it are what make this book his best work as Arnold comes to some harsh realizations about himself and where he has place himself.

I must admit to coming close to weeping at least three times while reading this book on the trains. I teared-up openly, without shame, at its tenderness, its evocation of my own memories, its unsparing look at the dynamics of the reservation family. Truly a tour-de-force book from the hands of one of the best writers of our time and of any race. A great book, I highly recommend it.

The Jounery of Crazy Horse - A Lakota History

The Journey of Crazy Horse

A Lakota History
By Joseph M. Marshall III

Reviewed by Ernest M. Whiteman III

"Crazy Horse is the only Indian Man that Indian Men are allowed to be in love with."

This book represents a Lakota history in the truest sense. In that Joseph M. Marshall is a Lakota himself, raised by family and grandfathers, taught to give respect to, take part in and most importantly, be responsible to a Lakota way of life. At the center of that lifestyle, according to Marshall, stands the Oglala leader Crazy Horse.

Marshall was raised on the Rosebud Reservation hearing the deeds of Tasunke Witko, so much so that like most (if not all) Native men, developed a mythological image of the historically petnia-coated figure called Crazy Horse. The man that has gotten lost in a haze of sepia tones and boyhood dreams. Marshall writes in hopes of connecting to that figure that is constantly forgotten about when set along side of the legend.

As one western movie put it, "If you have a legend and you have the truth. Print the legend."

And so many have since the death of Tasunke Witko. Marshall though has a very unique perspective of the man, the myth and the legend. Because Crazy Horse is one of Marshall’s people. They came up the same way, though in different eras (born almost exactly one hundred years apart.) Both taught from a young age to be responsible to a way of life that was true to the Lakota of the times.

I first met Joseph M. Marshall III when he was my instructor for an Introduction to Native American Studies course back at Central Wyoming College in the early nineties. Back then though, he was going by the simple name of Joe Marshall. He is a knowledgeable man though not beyond using ideas he garnered from past students. It irked me at first but I realized that he was doing what the best teachers do, like my own mother and father, he learned from his students. I have come to respect the great lengths he goes to, to preserve a way of thought and life which he brings to his writings.

I honestly cannot tell you if he would remember me from that class if you asked him. But I would like to jokingly tell you now, that only after that class did he begin going by Joseph M. Marshall III.

I also count myself among the Native men who have deified Crazy Horse. He, along with my father are the two best men I have known and in a sense, never known. I still carry in my mind the image of the Rider, the Dreamer, the Warrior, the Lightening. Many writers, including myself, have taken our shots at writing the "Definitive" biography of Crazy Horse. Mostly with mixed results.

Mari Sandoz and Stephen Ambrose are the more famous for theirs. Lonesome Dove Writer Larry McMurtry’s short version for the Peguin Life Series has become a personal favorite. McMurtry writes that many historians "print the legend" and thus tries to avoid the myth. But this gives him little else to write about after dismissing the large volumes of histories out there. But his straight-forward attitude about it not being his history to write and his way with the turn of phrase has made it my number one book on Crazy Horse.

That is, until now.

Marshall’s book should be, no, needs to be listed right up there with Sandoz and Ambrose, maybe even above them. Because Marshall is not simply writing another biography on Crazy Horse, he is telling us the story of Tasunke Witko.

This book is not algow with twittery prose espousing Native-nature terminology, nor is it an exercise in showing how many Lakota words he can spell correctly. Marshall draws on a rich historical tapestry that is never in history books. He draws on the stories and tales that have been passed down to him through the years. What gives these stories credence is that Marshall’s grandfathers were the sons of Crazy Horse’s contemporaries. He lays out the vast cultural differences and sets the stage for change that Crazy Horse fought to prevent.

Most histories focus on the battles of Manifest Destiny and rarely covers the ground of pre-Oregon Trail contact. Through the stories Marshall paints a picture of Lakota life before the encroachment of whom he rightly deems European Immigrants. This is Lakota land that is being invaded and Marshall tells of what was at stake that made the Lakota fight hard to protect it. Marshall does what few writers do, places Crazy Horse in the cultural context of his times and shows the changing of the Lakota world that Crazy Horse was on hand for.

Some have found this book a bit over-reliant on Native "word-of-mouth", but that is just another reflection of the cultural differences that Marshall plays out in this book. Just as whites need books to look to, to assure their histories happened, Natives have the old people, the storytellers, the scars, the experience to prove our histories are real, and that is no different to us than whites needing books. (Which is why American Society treats their elders like used books, I guess, they tuck them away never to be read or they throw them out.)

Here is a Native author, instructor and researcher writing a biography of a man that has been relegated to the white man’s history books. He is telling as accurate a story as any of the non-Native biographers yet his is criticized for not being over-reliant on the non-Native perspective.

The non-Native historians tend to push either the Warrior Savage who learned everything about fighting from the whites, and that was the ONLY way he could have defeated Custer and Crook, or the Mystical Savage who is lost in a haze of dreams and smoke, only fought when his dreams told him to. Here, Marshall plays out the cultural differences mainly though how each side dealt with war. Marshall conveys a Lakota warfare dependent on landscape, knowing the territory and your own abilities. Also, how Lakota warfare, which brave acts and honor were highly prized, was different from the non-Native form of war, which was to kill as many of the enemy as possible, inflict a lot of damage. This was the most eye-opening for me.

What I love about Marshall’s telling is that he is able to get under the layers of mythology and gives us a look at how Crazy Horse must have lived as a boy, as a fighter and as a man. Crazy Horse experiences the same things we all do, love, death, and conflict. But Marshall does not play them up for ideology, but firmly roots them in the Lakota lifestyle.

Marshall's book made me think of my own father, who was no less a warrior than Crazy Horse. My father did what he felt he had to do in the circumstances of the times. He experienced love, death, and conflict, yet counted that as a part of life. That was this books greatest gift to me. Marshall presented a legend as a man and helped me understand my father a bit more.

All sons have an idealized perspective of their fathers. No one ever really believes that their parents had full and complete lives BEFORE becoming our parents. Marshall’s book brought me closer to that understand because his telling of the life of Tasunke Witko, showed me that there were circumstances, a way of living, of loving and dying, of conflict with enemies, a way the world was before Tasunke Witko became Crazy Horse the Legend, before my father became a parent.

So, now I will place this on my shelf next to the other biographies of Crazy Horse knowing in at least, in this one book, I have a Lakota story of Tasunke Witko.

Highly Recommended

DEATH PROOF - DVD Review

Deathproof - DVD

Yawn...

Let’s face it people, Quentin Tarantino is skating. His career, with its meteoric rise with "Reservoir Dogs", dual points on a peaking curve that are "Pulp Fiction" and "Jackie Brown" and downward slide that was "Kill Bill vol’s 1 & 2", is now mostly kept afloat with snappy dialogue, genre homages, cool soundtracks, chicks crying and a singular performance that gets the most press.

"Jackie Brown" represented "QT" at the height of his powers. It had not one, but several stand out performances, (Most notable: Grier and Forrester), crisp dialogue, tight editing, a killer soundtrack, (the best of all his movies), plus the added ingredients of Tarantino deftly handling the works of another writer and the amazingly rare addition of a ‘soul’ which proved our boy was growing up. Just look at the chemistry, the desire, yearning and need from Grier and Forrester, for each other. No need for sex, or to make statements about race, age, or class, yet all those things are in those performances. That was a near perfect movie.

Now, we are sadly saddled with this extended version of his truncated entry into the "Grindhouse" double feature, which in truth, could have benefitted from some indiscriminate editing. I never got to view "Grindhouse" in the theater and now it looks like it will be next year when I can pluck down twice the price of a movie ticket to view it at home. Yet, my viewing of "Death Proof" could not have been much different that what appeared in theaters. I was running back and forth between my writing, film fest stuff and job searches and back to viewing this movie in segments. I feel that I did not miss anything. I saw it in chunks. I can see why they went with the "Grindhouse" version for theaters.

"Death Proof" is constantly described as nod to low-budget 70's chase movies, like "Vanishing Point" (Which gets referenced in the movie, a lot. I mean really pushing it for Tarantino.). Yet, it is never described in terms that actually tell you what it’s about. Check the ads, the press, the reviews, the DVD cover. All say it’s an homage to low-budget 70's chase movies like "Vanishing Point". Therein lies the ultimate fallacy of one Quentin Hurbert Tarantino.

"Death Proof" is about a stunt car driving serial killer called Stuntman Mike, a scarred and wasted (in terms of material, not intoxication) Kurt Russell, whom flirts with hot chicks and later kills them with his car. If you have seen the previews, you pretty much seen the plot of the movie. The in-betweens are filled with really long talking portions with QT overstuffing the dialogue. There is also a lap dance sequence that seems to have been cut from the theatrical run for no reason other than it featuring a lap dance. (You know because grindhouse guys used to cut stuff like this back in the day. You think it would have been raunchier.) Sure, the dialogue sounds cool but it is nearly 30 minutes until we see Kurt Russell, the supposed star of this movie spouting QT-cool dialogue when Mike mentions his stunt work on some old, obscure TV western. We take too long getting to know characters that are going to get killed off anyway, that it just seemed like an opportunity for characters to speak the QT Speak and Kurt Russell to "Act".

It’s supposed to be scary. Not boring. When the first crash happens nearly 45 minutes into the movie I was thinking "Geez! Finally!". I know this is the extended edition but I do not see how any of the added footage makes the movie enjoyable. It shows rather, that QT knows nothing about the pacing and tension-building of a scary movie. Which is what it is supposed to be. If you say it’s a chase movie, you’d be wrong. There is only one chase in the whole movie.

Then in the middle of it, for no apparent reason, he plops one-note actor Michael Parks playing a role he played a dozen times. For no apparent reason.

Another thing that bugs me lately about Tarantino is that no matter how tough and badass he makes the women appear in his movies, they always blubber and cry at the first sign of trouble. Why even the real stunt woman, who plays herself, begins to wail when Mike shows up. I disliked that about Kill Bill (but I tons of problems with Kill Bill.). And I would like to see a movie where a woman is on par, on level, on an even playing field as the men.

Anyways, Stuntman Mike begins stalking another group of pretties, led by Rosario Dawson, with that girl from "Sky High", the brunette, (And also starring Kurt Russell) in a cheerleader outfit, and two stunt women. (One, the real stunt woman Zoe Bell in a strong acting debut). This time, Mike gets in over his head as the women turn the tables and the only chase scene is on. The cheerleader gets left out of the rest of the movie, being in it for no other reason than she was wearing a cheerleader outfit. Crash. Beating. The end.

I know what some of you are saying. I am NOT supposed to take this seriously and that I am reading too much into it or expecting too much. Some others will say that I just don’t see what QT is doing (Yet, no one has ever stepped up to tell me exactly QT is doing. Not since KBv1, anyways.). That I don’t get it. I hear you. But come on.

Let’s face it. QT is making gimmick movies.

All his post-"Jackie Brown" work hinge on the audience connecting his movies with movies from other genres; KB touches on the Spaghetti Western, Sergio Leone (Please, let’s all leave Leone alone from now on. Please.) Shaw Brothers kung-fu movies, and Samurai Epics like "Sword of Doom" and "Miyamoto Musashi". You know, the stuff we are not supposed to take seriously and pat ourselves on the back for recognizing the flute from "Kung-Fu" or seeing a box of "Fruit Brute" or hear actors say something witty about kitsch 70's television. His "Inglorious Bastards" is to be a WWII epic, but we know he is just going to mimic Samuel Fueller. Right?

All of this gimmickery just lets him off the hook from making a full and complete movie again, movies like the people he emulates made/make, like he did once or twice. I know, "Jackie Brown" was an homage to the Blaxploitation flicks of the 70's. But watch it again and you can see he balanced that with a maturity and depth that he has yet to recapture. Some day, maybe. Until then we are stuck with the shallow pursuits like Kill Bill and Death Proof. One day that promising genius will comeback and surprise me and I will be there to watch it.

Death Proof DVD: not recommended.