Good morning, sunshine! You`re listening to "The best sentimental novels of the 18th century" on "Radio losers". Our todays guest is a certain Mr. Oliver Goldsmith. His hobbies include making people suffer and unexpected twists. The lead character in this novel is a silly old pastor, who just thinks that he`s so smart and that he`s so good. In the beginning everything`s fine for him but the suddenly he loses all his posessions because of a bankrupt merchant, his family is torn apart, his daughter gets seduced by a villainy nobleman. The funny thing is the fact that he seems to be the good hero, despite him being a complete idiot who`s only capable of thanking god and of preaching obedience. The most interesting thing about the book is the way it changes perspective. The first half of it is some sort of a comedy where the hero acts foolishly and everything suggests that this book is some sort of satyre. Later on the reader learns to know that the author is a sentimental fool and not a witty master of the ink after all. The ending for instance is more absurd than everything else in this world. Man, he really got me. I didn`t expect this would turn out the way it did. I mean, I knew it would have a happy ending - but what the heck did Goldsmith mean by the first comic half? I don`t believe that this was some sort of an aburdist, postmodern joke. Heck, that dude died before the French revolution. Sex wasn`t even invented back then. And this fellow would know something about postmodernism? He probably only read this Vergilius and Shakespeare and never thought that Hamlet might have been gay and killed Claudius only because he couldn`t let his mother share the bed with the man he loved. Hey, that was my idea and not Goldsmiths!

Strange, so strange. Who would have thought that I would find this film good? Let`s think logically, for indeed we are people that never - I say never - base their opinions entirely on the "it`s so cute and cuddely" kind of attitude. No, sir. First, we have the facts. And what are the facts? "Love Actually" actually is a romantic comedy. You probably know what a romantic comedy tastes like. You take your two teaspoons of Jennifer Lopez, add a knife`s end of Matt Damon and here you have it - a romantic comedy. A film of this category is usually recognizable by a complete lack of funny moments in it. And what can you expect from a romantic comedy starring Hugh Grant (oh, he`s such a cutie! - pathetic) and Mr. Colin Firth? "Bridget Jones`s Diary" would be the correct answer. But since I answered the question myself, no prize will be give. Screw you, Mr. lucky one! I don`t really why but I don`t like Hugh Grant at all. Maybe it`s because of my admiration of Johnny Depp. No, I hope not. But the fact is that Hugh Grant`s pretty face can`t be found on my "top of the poops" longlist. I do like his British accent and I can`t blame him for being a bad actor but he somehow doesn`t snap it for me. Still this film isn`t actually about Hugh Grant. Yes, he does play the prime minister of UK and he says some pretty straightforward things to the president of the United States, maybe that`s the reason why I have nothing against Grant`s performance in this film, but he still isn`t the true star of this film. Who is then? I don`t know. I like the probably bisexual dude at the art gallery, he`s cool and he looks like a fellow named Maanis I briefly know. Then there`s this funny guy named Colin who thinks that if he`ll go to America all chicks will want to have sex with him just because he`s British. Still the aging pop star Billy Mack is probably everybody`s favourite. Who else would have sung the brilliant "Christmas is all around" if it wasn`t for Mack? Who else would have not given a damn about anything sacred in this world? I don`t mean to say that this is a film of pure genius, that something like this can`t be repeated by anyone, anywhere and anytime. But this still is one of the best romantic comedies I`ve ever seen. And I feel such a total loser that I watched it alone and not together with my girlfriend who was studying for some exam. For this is a film to share with someone you love.

This is the music of my youth. So I will say when I`m 64. Until then I`ll say - this is the music of my last years at school. I remember how I wanted to see the Apes live for it was considered cool to listen to this kind of music. And I wasn`t a particulary cool person with a high level of popularity at school. Chicks didn`t like me, guys didn`t like me (for I`m not gay) and I was depressed all the time. Well, maybe not, but I still was some kind of a "Napoleon Dynamite" character. By saying all this I don`t mean to tell that now I`ve become a super-duper cheerleader-captain (if were are male cheerleaders) and that everybody loves Raymond. But at least I have become a mentally calmer person with less nervous breakdowns and suicide attempts (you`re free to interpret this sentence any way you like).

This film was quite big when it came out, but I didn`t watch it back then for I was some 11 years old and I didn`t like films with the word "funeral" in the title. You see, I automatically assumed that such a film would be too depressive for my taste. And I may have been right. But now I`m not 11 anymore, actually I have doubled my age since 1994, so my preferences in a film have also changed. I don`t mind a film if it revolves around four weddings (and a funeral). I don`t mind Hugh Grant`s looks. In fact I`m not so sure anymore about the reasons for me not to like him. So, he is a sugary-sweet good-looking nice guy but why would that bother me? Will I come over as being gay for liking films with good looking actors? If that`s the case I`ll probably only watch Latvian films till the end of my days, just to be sure that no one thinks that I`m gay.

After finishing reading the second book by this writer I`m becoming more and more convinced that this Andersch was a very good writer indeed despite the fact that he`s virtually unknown in the part of the world where I come from. "Die Rote" is mostly told through the perspective of its main hero - a woman named Franziska that has just left her husband (or was it a lover) Herbert and her lover (who most certainly wasn`t a husband) Joachim. She flees from Milan where she was last with Herbert, she doesn`t have too much money and she ends up in Venice where she tries to start a new life. That doesn`t seem simple at all since she only has a few days before the money runs out and she may be pregnant (although there`s no certainty about it). Parallel to the life of Franziska we encounter an old seaman and a middleaged Italian violion player who once participated in the Spanish civil war and doesn`t have much to dream about. Franziska`s senseless existence doesn`t last long - only until she meets O`Malley - an Irish fellow who was meant to be a British spy in Germany during WW2 but was persuaded by a certain inspector Kramer to switch sides. Now, long after the was O`Malley still is planning to have his revenge upon Kramer for he has taken the most dear thing for an Englishman - O`Malley will never be a gentleman again after he`s done what he`s done. Still Kramer doesn`t take O`Malley seriously for he doesn`t believe that the Irishman has the guts to kill him. Only when he meets Franziska, now a more grieve enemy to him, he becomes suspicious for her being able to give him away to the German police (for nazi war criminals aren`t particulary at that time). In the end O`Malley poisons Kramer and leaves Franziska on her own (which is no surprise since he`s gay), although he had promised her to take her as a companion on a long voyage on see. What happens next, is not described, and who would expect anything else from a typical postmodern novel? Stylistically the books switches all the time between direct speech and actions of the characters on one side, and their thoughts on the other. I liked it, and it only means that it`s most likely not the last book by Andersch I`ll ever read.

Actually I was going to see a different film but since it somehow didn`t work properly with the video projector there`s was no other option but than watch "One Day in Europe". I first learned to know that such a film existed quite a long time ago (circa 4 months I guess) when there was the first information about a festival of German football-related films in Riga. I was even intending to go and see "ODiE" at the cinema but I didn`t do it. Since the film watching event was a bit wider than my usual audience of 1 person I had my little concerns about how this film will come off with the audience. After all 3 of 6 spectators were of the feminine sex and girls typically don`t care much for football and films on football. Luckily I didn`t warn them what we were going to see, therefore no one had a chance to start arguing before switching the film on. Later on it proved that the film wasn`t about football after all, more likely it was a film about foreigners in trouble in different places in Europe. The film contains four separate stories, chained together by the football Champions League final game happening on the day when all other evens also take place. The first one is set in Moscow where a she-tourist gets robbed by some armed bandits and she tries to get help from the local police where nobody pays much interest for you, nobody speaks English and nobody believes that thieves can be caught. The second story is set in Istambul where a German tourist doesn`t get robbed but pretends that he did. He jumps into a cab and wants to go to a police station but the cab driver starts searching for the thieves on his own, not knowing that they don`t exist in fact. In the third story a Hungarian tourist lets a villain get away with his digital camera containing about 1500 shots. He must overgo a long and boring trip with a policeman to the office, at first it seems that this time for once there will be no problems for the city is packed with surveillance cameras, the only trouble is that some guard has spent a lot of time examining women`s legs and not filming the gate near which the man was robbed. The last scene is about a young French couple in Berlin who make their living from street performances but when the living is not enough they decide to simulate that... they have been robbed. In the end the cops don`t buy their story and the couple flees on the police car. As for the football - lots of supporters appear on the screen very often, and we learn to know that the game between Galatasaray and Deportivo La Coruna ended 1:1 and there were penalties.

This is the final novel Chapek wrote in his life short before his protest starvation induced death (he still had little chance to survive the German invasion in Czechoslovakia being the 2nd on their enemy of the state list). The novel contains various people`s memories about some unsuccessful composer. One of them knew him at school, other was his teenage love, some other - a critic to whom he showed his work. From the first part we get a feeling that Foltaine was a talented but a bit disturbed person who could eventually achieve something great. His first girlfriend doesn`t like his bragging for his sexual experience (which doesn`t fit particulary well with his behaviour). But later we find out that Foltaine not only doesn`t become a great composer but that he also doesn`t achieve anything simply because he`s unable to compose a thing. He starts to compose an opera but in fact after he`s married a rich man`s daughter he pays different unsuccessful young musicians to write musical pieces for him and he just somehow binds them together thus achieving a monstrous creating that jumps from one style to another never really going anywhere. In addition to that Foltaine`s passion for a repututation of a bohemian and of a great lover only evolves when he gets older but in deed nobody really wants him, nobody really loves him and he dies after losing his mind completely. The novel itself ends quite abruptly for Chapek didn`t have enough time to finish it and the last chapter was written by a different person. At first I thought it was just a trick done by the author (I didn`t know that it was his last work), but it wasn`t. The novel got published posthumously and I guess it was more than worth being released. A very good book. My impression of Chapek`s work gets better and better once again.

It may very well be the case that the record that I listened to was just a bootleg and not the official release but since the bandmembers themselves said that only little bits that the average Joe would hardly notice were added after the album got leaked on the Internet I guess the version I got will be good enough for me to cristalize an opinion about the name Def Leppard`s album of covers. The album starts with a cover of Sweet`s "Hellraiser". I`m not familiar with the original for I don`t rank Sweet among my favourite bands but it seems to be a decent AC/DC style song. "No Matter what" was originally performed by Badfinger but the Leppards make it sound like a Bryan Adams composition (and as you know Canada already apologised to America for Bryan once). "Rock on" is a David Essex song (I don`t know more about the fellow than his name) - it`s typical album filler. Next comes "Hangin` on The Telephone" from Blondie which has lost its new-wavish feeling and has become just an average dumb rocker. T-Rex`s "20th Century Boy" is good although I still prefer the cover by "Placebo" from "Velvet Goldmine". David Bowie`s "Drive-in Saturday" sounds good but is too much of a power ballad for me. I won`t go on for I`m too lazy for that but I`ll briefly mention that "Waterloo sunset" - a cover of the Kinks song is the best piece on the album yet it doesn`t come anywhere near the original. In comparison to Ozzy Osborne`s album of covers the Leppards are at least in a good form but they just don`t have the good style - their vision is very limited and most of the songs sound similar despite the diversity of the source material. Maybe it lies in the fact that the Leppards haven`t produced anything impressive since the 80s. Just like Ozzy.

Germany is the second most turkish country in the world following Turkey itself. Therefore there`s no wonder that some sort of German-Turkish art has been becoming more and more known lately. "Hurriyet Love Express" is a book of stories about Turks in Germany. You probably know the song "Young Turks". In fact I`m not 100% sure that I do myself, but it`s just one more proof how the Turks are taking over the world. Just like the Chinese are. But enough of that. What is so special about this book that I decided to read it? Nothing really, just another case of taking a book by an unknown author from the library. Some of the stories are at least worth reading - the first one about a gambler who goes to Germany from Turkey in order to do his trade but when he arrives he sees that the gambling place isn`t built yet and that he`s come there as a construction worker. Then there was a story about a taxi driver picking up a Latino woman from a S&M club - the woman has come to Germany thinking that she`ll be working in a restaurant, just as she was in Columbia. To make it three stories mentioned in this memo factoid I want to tell myself a story about a young but poor guy who falls in love with a girl (quoting the White Stripes) and buys her 800 roses but doesn`t impress her with that. Oh, no, I don`t want to stop. Then there`s a story where a man steals expensive sunglasses from a store just because he doesn`t have cash and creditcards aren`t accepted, and when the glasses break he manages to get a new pair from the factory. In another story two guys desperate for sex start a lot of relationships through telephone ads and in the end each of them falls in love with a girl, only they don`t know that it`s the same girl but with different names. I guess that will do it - stories are good, not breaktaking, not bed shaking but a solid 7 is the right mark for a book like this one.

This is where I reach the conclusion of Chapek`s "Trilogy". I still don`t know what all these books have in common. Maybe - that you can look differently at everything and that your conclusions cannot be separated from your person. Maybe - that no man is plain as a plank. In that case "An ordinary life" is the right conclusion to the trilogy. Its main hero is a man who knows that he`s going to die soons and he writes his lifestory so it would be a perfect example of an ordinary life. Only by writing it he finds out that he isn`t as ordinary as it may have seemed to him. He finds out that there are several different personalities within him and that he doesn`t like some of them at all. And without all those different personalities, including a simple man, a distrophic, a poet, a hero, a pervert, an ambitious ladderclimber and others he wouldn`t be what he is. Yet he isn`t really sure whether he likes himself for some of his personalities are quite ugly indeed. It would probably be right for me to give here his biography - he was a son of a carpenter, he was very good at school, yet he had no friends there. The went to some good school and started to study at a university. But when he shared a room with a fat poet he forgot about studies and became a rebel, an alcoholic and a supposedly bad poet. When his father refused to send him more money he left his poetry and took a job on a railroad. There he made some sort of a career, married the daughter of the director of his railway station, did some sabotage during WW1 and got a job at some ministry in the new republic of Czechoslovakia. And then he died. Simple? Isn`t it. But some of the pieces of his life didn`t match the pattern he wanted to find everywhere - for example, his short love with poetry, which was characterised by a young man calling him some 40 years later the Czech Rimbaud. And then there was an episode where he had sex at the age of 8 with a gypsy girl.