Happy Birthday: Nina Simone (born Eunice Kathleen Waymon; February 21, 1933 – April 21, 2003) was an American pianist, singer, songwriter, and civil rights activist. Her music spanned styles including classical, folk, gospel, blues, jazz, R&B, and pop. Her piano playing was strongly influenced by baroque and classical music, especially Johann Sebastian Bach, and accompanied expressive, jazz-like singing in her contralto voice. Rolling Stone named Simone one of the greatest singers on various lists.

The sixth of eight children born into a respected family in North Carolina, Simone initially aspired to be a concert pianist. With the help of a local fund set up in her hometown, she enrolled at Allen High School for Girls, then spent a summer at the Juilliard School of Music in New York City, preparing to apply for a scholarship to study at the Curtis Institute of Music in Philadelphia. She failed to gain admission to Curtis, which she attributed to racism. She remained musically active until her death in 2003, a day or two after the institute awarded her an honorary degree.

Early in her career, to make a living, Simone played piano at a nightclub in Atlantic City. She changed her name to "Nina Simone" to disguise herself from family members, having chosen to play "the devil's music" or so-called "cocktail piano". She was told in the nightclub that she would have to sing to her own accompaniment, which effectively launched her career as a jazz vocalist. After making her debut with Little Girl Blue in 1958, she went on to record more than 40 albums up to 1974. She released her first and biggest hit single in the United States in 1959 with "I Loves You, Porgy", which peaked inside the top 20 of the Billboard Hot 100 chart. Simone became known for her work in the civil rights movement during the 1950s and 1960s, and she later left the United States and settled in France following the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. in 1968. She lived and performed in Europe, Africa, and the Caribbean throughout the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. In 1991, Simone published her autobiography, I Put a Spell on You (taking the title from her famous 1965 album), and she continued to perform and attract audiences until her death.

[I *think* I 'discovered' her - and fell in love with her amazing voice - when watching the Luc Besson French noir thriller La Femme Nikita as the assassin was obsessed with her music and played it LOUD all the time. Brilliant.]

Just Finished Reading: Spartacus by Lewis Grassic Gibbon (FP: 1933) [237pp] 

Italy, 73BC. As soon as Kleon heard the news he knew exactly what to do. Taking a knife, he went into his master’s bedroom and calmly slit his throat. Leaving the house and the city he made his way south meeting up with other runaway slaves who were all searching for one man – Spartacus. Even if it was a dream, it was a dream worth having. They were free. For how long no one knew. It would only be a matter of time before the masters came to reclaim their property or, more likely, to kill them all and to destroy for ever the very idea that mere slaves could revolt without paying the ultimate price. Spartacus the man was almost a myth already – the gladiator who had stood against Rome itself. But he was far from alone. The slaves who gathered around him were far from the rabble portrayed across Italy. Many had fought in the arena and many more were both prepared and able to train to fight. It wasn’t long before the slave army had become the Free Legions and had won their first battle against a hastily put together Roman force. Now with more confidence, more weapons and more recruits they needed to decide what to do next. Would it be crossing the border into freedom or an attack on Rome itself? Only Spartacus could decide. 

As a fan of Spartacus himself (mostly because of the badly aged Kirk Douglas film to be honest) and having read a few history books about the fabled slave revolt I jumped at this fictionalisation of the events back in the Roman Republic. Finding out its age and classic status (completely unknown to me) made me want to read it all the more. I was not disappointed. Despite being slightly slow at times and, at least at times, feeling slightly oddly written – I did wonder if the author was going for a mix of ‘modern’ and classical style – this was both a fun and fascinating read.  

Told from several perspectives (mostly from the Free Legions sub-commanders as well as Spartacus himself and the Roman generals who opposed him) this gave a rounded – if fictional – interpretation of events. Interesting for such an old novel there was a ‘meta’ moment were some of the characters wondered how the revolt would be seen in the future and how much of reality would survive the inevitable mythologisation that was already happening! I found that musing, between battles, quite fascinating and mused on it quite a bit. Although there were a handful of battles described – very well I thought – there was much more going on. We saw various nationalities discussing their gods and other beliefs, and we saw friendships form and relationships develop. All of the main characters were well drawn and believable which certainly helped with immersion into the story. Being the time and event in question there are more than a few moments of violent death which might disturb some readers. Whilst not particularly graphic the narrative doesn’t pull every punch so be prepared for more than a little blood and people being nailed to trees. Recommended for any fans of the classical world or of the slave revolt itself. 

Looks like a *mixed* relationship... Not sure if that'd work!

Just Finished Reading: Chickenhawk by Robert Mason (FP: 1983) [399pp] 

Robert Mason wanted to fly for as long as he could remember. Gaining his civilian pilot's licence as soon as he could he still wasn’t satisfied. He wanted to fly helicopters but the only way he could afford that was to be trained by the Army, so he joined up. Despite the worsening situation in SE Asia, he never expected to be sent to Vietnam. That, among other things, just showed his lack of understanding about the world. Within weeks of getting his helicopter pilot's licence he was on his way overseas with a new type of combat unit – the 1st Air Cavalry. For the next 12 months, from August 1965 to July 1966, he would fly over 1,000 combat missions delivering troops into hot LZs (Landing Zones), returning later to pick up the survivors, the wounded and the dead, he would deliver ammunition, food and other supplies to artillery units on lonely hilltops, and he would fly top brass and reporters across the jungle to ‘assess how things were going’. Apart from being an effective member of his squadron and not letting the guys down he had only one driving ambition – to survive his tour (despite everything) and return home to his wife and child. He did (no spoiler here as he wrote this book!) but as a changed man plagued by nightmares and increasing addicted to alcohol and drugs. 

This was a mistake. I had thought, going in, that this was a novel so I could add another Vietnam entry into my fictional world tour. The book turned out to be, however, a personal account of the authors experiences as part of an experimental tactical unit expected to win the war in Vietnam in a matter of months. This was, in many ways, an impressive work. Not only did the author (not a professional writer in any way) convey the reality of modern warfare – the chaos and incompetence at all levels was honestly shocking – but did so in such a way that you could almost imagine sitting in that helicopter with him throughout the narrative. No doubt he pulled his punches from time to time to reduce the grimness of the tale, but what he did end up conveying was bad enough.  

The new ‘Air Cav’ system was expected to be a true war winner. Afterall, the most powerful military in the world was fighting (if you could use that word) a bunch of guys in sandals carried AK-47s, right? How could they possibly lose? Yet much to the surprise of the top brass (although quickly understood by the men on point) not only did the Vietcong not quickly go down to defeat and despondency they not only fought back but fought back effectively – and the US military had little response except more and more troops and more and more firepower. Looking at it with 60 years of hindsight it's easier to see why they failed. Firstly, it was all (effectively) new to the Americans despite their experiences in WW2. On top of that they were trying out, with great hopes, their new lethal toys against a supposedly primitive enemy. Their (actually warranted) arrogance wouldn’t allow them to see problems before they arose or solutions once the problems morphed into an intractable mire. The author related a simple but significant fact – before flying into his first combat zone he, and other pilots and gunners, were promised body armour. This finally arrived SEVEN months into a twelve-month deployment. Apart from logistical incompetence the reason I think this happened was because no one believed that they’d still be involved in the war for 6 months, never mind in excess of 16 YEARS. This level of over confidence (or arrogance) resulted in a lot of unnecessary deaths on all sides.  

I’d read a bit about this war before, watched movies and documentaries and actually remember watching it on the nightly news growing up, but this account was a real eye-opener to the reality on the ground. If you want to be exposed to how things where ‘in country’ from a first-hand perspective this is a very good place to start. Definitely recommended and more from this combat zone to come. 

[Highest page count of the year so far: 399pp][+17pp]