Gimme Danger, Gimme Great Films: Both at the IFC

Avery Kim

Hipsters, college kids and seasoned New Yorkers huddle nightly outside of Manhattan’s IFC Center, an independent cinema, located on Avenue of the Americas near West 3rd Street. A retro-style black and red marquee resides above the single box office. “Now Showing” posters line the IFC Center’s exterior and exhibit the eclectic assortment of international, experimental, documentary and classic films shown at the iconic Greenwich Village theater.

Once a Dutch Reform Church in 1831, later a second-run film house known as the Waverly Theater in 1937, the IFC Center was birthed in 2005 with a screening of “Me and You and Everyone We Know.” Though modernized and commercialized, the community feel of the multiplex thrives. Cinephiles from all walks of life continue to come together and admire the art of the moving image.

On a cold November evening, a diverse crowd waited in line at the box office. I stood in the queue, the illuminated Empire State Building glistening from a distance in my peripherals, amused by a handwritten sign in the IFC’s window proclaiming “[their] shirts go to 11!” (alluding to Reiner’s “This Is Spinal Tap”). Craving a rockumentary, I purchased a ticket to “Gimme Danger.”

The aroma of cigarettes from the street dominated until I opened the theater’s door — a total immersion into buttery, fresh, hot popcorn. After handing an usher my ticket for entry, my body involuntarily waltzed over to the snack stand.

Despite the IFC’s expansive menu, adorned with organic popcorn, hot teas, Jacque Torres chocolate treats, Melt ice cream sandwiches, and Popsicles from a local favorite, Popbar, I opted for traditional Sour Patch Kids.

The concession vendor was quaint, but kitschy and trendy, nonetheless. A vintage popcorn maker sat behind the clerk, featuring golden kernels exploding on-site.

Theater 3, where “Gimme Danger” screened, was smaller than average, but allowed for a more intimate experience. The leather seats that stippled the theater were plush, buoyant, wide and cloudlike.

The lights dimmed and an IFC-sponsored message enveloped the screen: “No texting, no smoking, no talking,” it started; “No clowns,” it continued with other quirky choices; “No bad movies,” it ended.

Trailers followed. No two genres were alike.

Finally, Iggy and The Stooges appeared on screen, and I knew that “Gimme Danger” had begun.

The film, being a cinematographically inspiring Jarmusch documentary, I would definitely recommend. I would also encourage others to take a journey to the IFC, pick a movie from the carefully curated collection, and appreciate it or hate it or have some reaction to it.

Accessible by trains to West 4th or Christopher Street, heterogeneity is the norm; the IFC Center is in the soul of Greenwich Village, one of Manhattan’s last cultural hubs. It reels in people of all backgrounds and hones in on inclusivity with all-gender bathrooms.

Lolita: Beauty Versus Crime

Morgan Hickman

I had been wanting to read “Lolita” by Vladimir Nabokov for quite some time, and often found myself picking it up gingerly along the fiction aisle at Barnes & Noble, spreading my hand over the racy cover while flipping through the pages before letting it nestle back on its spot among the shelves. Knowing the controversy surrounding it, the book itself became this center of mystery to me and formed this reputation in my mind as the forbidden fruit of literature. Beckoning me with its provocative pages and promise of unrequited love, curiosity finally got a hold of me and I found myself up at the register, clutching the novel bashfully to my chest.

On the first page I experienced syrupy-sweet poetry, a siren song for a lost love — “light of my life, fire of my loins” — I became a part of Humbert’s seemingly innocent desire — lost in a eulogy of ashen lust. Then, as the story progressed, what simple sweetness that had emerged on the early pages, soon turned dark as I realized Humbert’s rather alarming past. Confused as to where his own illegal desires come from, he contributes it back to his sexual awakening in his childhood, involving a girl who died shortly after their acquaintance. This view darkens further as the reader discovers just how Humbert spends his time: stalking children in the park, engaging in sexual acts with young prostitutes, and even acquiring a wife in which he abuses verbally and physically.

I found the perception of the story that I previously held was completely false — revering a plot which follows a man with a demented mind-set that allows him to perform illegal acts on behalf of his unavoidable desires for “nymphettes” — labeling him as a pedophile and criminal. These desires run his life, meaning everything he does in the novel, every move and waking breath, is performed to reach his goal of satisfying his own lust.

Even as I am writing this, I am finding it hard to admit what Humbert had done, to call it like it really was — I found myself torn between the poetic phrases in the novel, and this sickening plot. But I think this perfectly explains what Nabokov wanted to portray — a broken man, with his incredibly abusive tendencies but also this overwhelming desire in which he seems to have little control over. One realizes when reading, that the desire expressed for Lolita on the first page was driven by his pedophillic tendencies, but made stronger by his loss of her — and the loss of her innocence toward the end of the book, focusing only on the absence of her from his life — instead of what caused the absence itself.

432 Park Avenue — A Splinter in the Sky

Gabriel Gonzalez


信用。。。塞思·韦尼格/美联社

The New York skyline has undergone many changes in the 400 years since being settled by Dutch colonists. The dynamic skyline has represented the evolution of this world city, the changing architecture serving as the city’s vertical strata that document the different historical periods the city has lived through. However, a recent trend of residential skyscrapers has begun to transform the skyline in a completely different way, chief among them being the one at 432 Park Avenue.

Instead of the graceful Art Deco forms of the Empire State Building and the Chrysler Building, or the gleaming modernism of One World Trade Center, we are presented with a blocky cage, a contemporary take on Mies van der Rohe and 1950s functionalist/international style architecture. The structure itself is composed of glass and steel, and is the tallest residential skyscraper in New York City, with the tallest roof height of any building in the City. 432 Park Avenue has a 19:1 height-to-width ratio, making it one of the most slender skyscrapers in Manhattan. The unconventional width of the building makes it appear as an intruder, invading photos of the beloved New York skyline.

Towering over established landmarks, it impudently demands attention, claiming its height as a verification of superiority. However, it doesn’t take much digging to reveal that the skyscraper’s design was inspired by nothing other than a trash can. Yep, that’s right. New York City has its very own trash can in its skyline. The can in question was designed by Josef Hoffman, and sports the same blocky, square design of the tower — without all the glass. Instead of using rectangular windows, or a tower cloaked in glass, the architect decided to go with square windows that look out of place on the slim tower, and make it appear as if it were composed of gray Lego bricks. The choice of square windows makes the building appear squat, giving passer-by a confusing image of an anorexic giant that seems uncomfortably compressed.

It seems that the Architect was afraid that narrower, vertical, rectangular windows would draw the eye upward and make the tower seem too tall to fit in with the surrounding landscape, but he made the tower so tall that any window configuration would have this effect. It might have been better to cloak the entire building in reflective glass. That way, it would mirror the sky above and the buildings around it, and would camouflage its abnormal dimensions with its surroundings. As this building is the first completed one in a slew of supertall residential towers under construction, it draws alarm to the future of the iconic New York skyline.

The ‘Wonder’ of Minimalism

Andrew Chung

South Korean artist Crush’s latest album “Wonderlust” comes across as a pleasant surprise to fans of the 24-year-old R&B wunderkind. The minimalism of “Wonderlust” contrasts directly with the rich instrumentation showcased in his last EP “Interlude” and allows Crush to come into his own as a strong writer and vocalist. The album is also a breath of fresh air in a somewhat shallow K-pop music industry that mainly prioritizes catchiness. The ubiquity of consumer-oriented music in this market allows artistic visionaries like Crush to shine brighter in every project, and “Wonderlust” is no exception.

“Wonderlust” captures a spare, yet nuanced sound that effortlessly evokes the wistfulness of autumn. “Shall we leave this stuffy city,” Crush suggests in the highly economical intro track “Wanderlust.” Without much else said, he entices the listener to take him up on his offer. Fortunately, Crush stands by his word — he seamlessly interweaves a highly minimalistic sound with deep yet simple emotions from times past, leaving all the stuffiness and complexities of the present in the dust.

The overall texture is thin to the point where one might claim that his minimalism skirts lazy production under the guise of art. However, Crush shatters all such impressions upon close inspection, as all five tracks on the album are laced with sheer sensitivity. “2411” is the love child of lyrical precision and purposeful instrumentation, arousing vivid images of Crush’s past as a no-name singer who resolved to “never give up.../ in bus 2411, [his] only shelter.” The third track “Nostalgia,” characterized by a soothing yet painfully restrained vocal line, evokes a pang of reminiscence without explicitly referencing the past. The guitar emotively rolls jazzy chords to produce a yearning vocal quality, reaching the heights of wistfulness every time it follows the melody line. The title song “Fall” follows with straightforward lyrics and seasonal metaphors (“My reality is a cruel fall without you / I still can’t forget”) in a longing message dedicated to a past love. “How’s by you?” he then gently asks, establishing a bond of sympathy with listeners who have most likely asked the same question at one point or another in their lives. The finale “Like My Father” is the apotheosis of both emotional sensitivity and minimalism, as Crush engages in personal dialogue with his father and yearns to “remain in [his] younger days” in a touching duet between falsetto and piano.

The acoustic-ballad-themed “Wonderlust” greatly deviates from the “trendy” alternative R&B sound that dominates Crush’s past albums. There’s nothing fancy to it — the overarching narrative, the production, the vocal techniques, everything. Then again, aren’t our emotions, however strong, simple as well? Crush realizes this very truth in “Wonderlust,” masterfully relating to his audience through overwhelming simplicity and sensitivity — and to do just that, sometimes 13 minutes and 37 seconds is all it takes.

Listening to The (Not So) Modern Lovers Forty Years Later

Maya Charlton

I’m not sure when exactly, but at some point — and, of course, I’m making overdramatic generalizations here — alternative rock music turned into bearded white guys singing in falsettos about the true meaning of life or love or whatever over wishy-washy Charlie Brown-style drumming. Honestly, I’m tired of pretending I like Bon Iver so record-store hipsters think I’m sensitive and thoughtful. To me, nothing is more grating than a band that takes itself too seriously. Thank God, The Modern Lovers are not that kind of band. Their eponymous debut and final album is at times ecstatic and raucous, at times melancholy, lonely and oddly retrospective for a band with the word “modern” in their name.

With mainly irreverent, but at the same time strangely relatable, lyrics and consistently good beats (shout out to drummer David Robinson, who went on to join The Cars!), “The Modern Lovers” is an album for being young and driving to nowhere in particular at 2 a.m. It’s the rare album that is an ode to every aspect of life. It has songs like “Roadrunner” that make you sing along at the top of your lungs and do awkward Hillary shoulder shimmies while try to keep your hands on the steering wheel (“Roadrunner, roadrunner/going faster miles an hour”). It has songs like “Hospital” that make you tear up to when there’s no other car on the road and you start thinking about people you really shouldn’t bother thinking about (“I go to bakeries all day long/there’s a lack of sweetness in my life”). It has songs like “Pablo Picasso” that make you laugh and roll your eyes (“some people try to pick up girls/and get called ***holes/this never happened to Pablo Picasso”).

However, I suspect “The Modern Lovers,” much like “The Catcher in the Rye,” emotionally resonates the most when you’re between the ages of 15 and 25. Jonathan Richman, the lead singer, guitarist and sole songwriter of the band, was 21 when most of the songs on the album were recorded, and he doesn’t bother pretending to be any older, wiser or more grandiose than a 21-year-old. The album proudly wears its immaturity on its sleeve with drunkenly hiccuping lyrics like “tonight I’m all alone in my room/I’ll go insane if you won’t/sleep with me I’ll still be with you/I’m gonna meet you on the astral plane”. The Modern Lovers don’t try to be sophisticated or even serious, but they do try to be as honest as possible. That’s the best part about this album. It’s raw, vivid, precise, wry, and has managed to avoid almost all clichés (except on the track “Girlfriend” because Richman thought misspelling “G-I-R-L-F-R-E-N” was clever).

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them’: Tackling Bigger Monsters

信用。。。华纳兄弟影业

Abigail Brunn

In a magical world of shapeshifting snakes and pilfering platypi, could humanity pose the greatest threat? For indisputable philanthropist and quintessential Hufflepuff, Newt Scamander, the theory seems all too plausible. “Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them” transports devoted fans and muggles alike into a new realm of witchcraft and wizardry. A story of preserving wildlife, challenging governmental influence, and embracing individuality, the fantastic film seems to have an unexpectedly realistic edge.

Set in 1920s New York City, “Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them” creates a magic of its own. Bustling streets, towering skyscrapers, and mustard-topped hot dogs immerse viewers into the uncharted universe of early 20th century America. J.K. Rowling, the reason for Harry Potter’s existence and sole screenwriter for the film, adds her own twist — the unlikely protagonist himself, Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne). Scamander, joined by comical no-maj, or non-magical person, Kowalski (Dan Fogler), and ambitious witch, Tina (Katherine Waterston), travels throughout the city, from Macy’s Department Store to goblin-owned speakeasies. But there’s a catch: Scamander, avid lover of all fantastic beasts, has brought some creatures along in his suitcase. They, too, have decided to explore the city — on their own.

Scamander’s subsequent journey is not only one of recovering creatures; it is one of discovering himself. Like a selfless and loyal Hufflepuff, Scamander fights to defend his beasts from “millions of the most vicious creatures on the planet — humans.” He defies orders from an oppressive government — Rowling’s version of Potter’s Ministry of Magic, the Magical Congress of the United States of America — to protest the state of creature rights. He mentors a young wizard, freeing him from suppression and the puritanical grasp of an anti-wizardry organization, the Second Salem Preservation Society. He exposes the man whose bleached blonde mohawk and infamous name appear on every magical newspaper throughout the wizarding world.

The beauty of the film is not found in Rowling’s shy protagonist or his boy-next-door British charm. Nor is it found in the brilliant cinematography behind window-shopping monkeys and Arizona-bound dragons. It is found in Scamander’s attempts to save his creatures and friends from the world’s most terrible beasts — humans. With the help of an otherworldly cast and captivating story line, “Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them” transforms a fantastic tale into a modern social statement. No magic needed.

 

第三届2017学生年度评论大赛获奖名单


信用。。。梅琳达·苏·戈登/20世纪福克斯

在一年一度的学生评论大赛中,我们挑战青少年走出去,体验对他们来说陌生的文化作品,然后写下他们的反应和意见。今年,我们收到了1,494份提交。

学生可以选择《纽约时报》评论的任何类型的创意作品,所以在下面你可以找到从太阳马戏团和“贱女孩”等节目到“婴儿司机”和“性别之战”等电影以及艾伦星尘餐厅和T-Rex Cafe等餐厅的所有作品。

恭喜我们的 10 位获奖者、15 位亚军和 20 位荣誉奖。今年,我们按字母倒序列出了这些名字,因为我们过去曾听到一些名字以X,Y和Z开头的学生抱怨他们很少成为第一个。您会在名称列表下方找到发布的获奖评论。

获奖评论

Grace Zhou, age 17: “Oryx and Crake: A World Unchecked”

Sara Wasdahl, age 17: “Everything’s a Little Mad Here”

Evan Reynolds, age 15: “Battle of the Sexes: A Hillary Clinton Movie in a Donald Trump World”

Arnav Prasad, age 17: “‘Universal Paperclips’: The Rebirth of a Classic Video Game Genre”

Amaya Oswald, age 17: “Rashid Johnson’s ‘Stranger’ and the Desire to Be One”

Vicky Lee, age 17: “Cirque du Soleil: Oh, So Kurios”

Matthew Lamberson, age 17: “Xana-don’t: The Costly Monstrosity”

Thorne Kieffer, age 16: “An Incurable Fever”

Connor Crowell, age 16: “A Study in Repetition”

Lily Barnett, age 16: “Freetown Sound: Messy, Confusing, and Brilliant”

10篇获奖评论

Oryx and Crake’: A World Unchecked

Everything’s a Little Mad Here

Battle of the Sexes: A Hillary Clinton Movie in a Donald Trump World

Rashid Johnson’s ‘Stranger’ and the Desire to Be One

Cirque du Soleil: Oh, So Kurios

Xana-don’t: The Costly Monstrosity

An Incurable Fever

A Study in Repetition

Freetown Sound: Messy, Confusing, and Brilliant

Theodore Sakellaridis, age 15: “Cuphead: A New Take on the Past”

Olivia Roark, age 15: “‘Mean Girls’ Finds a New Medium”

Elizabeth Puthumana, age 16: “The Heart of a Lion”

Taylor Pitzl, age 16: “Mother! Doesn’t Know Best”

Elizabeth “Betsy” Kim, age 18: “Death and Deep Questions in ‘Dunkirk’”

Cameron Kaercher, age 17: “Baby Driver — ‘He’s a Looney. Just like His Tunes.’”

Kaitlin Jones, age 16: “You’re Getting Warmer: A Review of the Red Hot Chili Peppers’s Ninth Studio Album”

Betsy Jenifer, age 18: “Ten Days in a Mad-House by Nellie Bly: A Chilling Peek Into Madness”

Reed Holland, age 14: “‘Your Fathers, Where Are they? And the Prophets, Do They Live Forever?’ Raises More Questions Than it Answers”

James Heffner, age 18: “Dancer in the Dark: The Musical Against Musicals”

Konrad Fondrie, age 18: “In Wonderland, an Impossible Permanence”

Jackson Edwards, age 17: “A One-Woman Show: Sarah Huckabee Sanders Shines in the White House Press Briefing”

Archie Barnes, age 14: “Wu-Tang Clan: The Saga Continues”

Laura Angulo, age 16: “Origin by Dan Brown — The Existential Questions of Humankind”

Guy Anello, age 16: “The Science of Everything”

Joanne Yang, age 14: “Fetish Review of ’Fetish’ by Selena Gomez”

James Wilt, age 16: “The T-Rex Cafe, Somewhere You Can Really Sink Your Teeth Into.”

Samantha Vatalaro, age 17: “‘Humanz’ After All: Gorillaz’s New Album and Dancing Through the Darkness”

Nandini Talwar, age 17: “Rain: A Thought; A Squall”

Simon Sweeney, age 16: “Our Kingdom for a Horse: Peter Shaffer’s Equus in Pittsburgh”

Sophie, age 16: “What Is a Feminist Anyway?”

Cate Schultz, age 15: “Chance the Rapper: An Artist Who Redefined His Artist”

Elena Seaholm, age 16: “‘Baby Driver’: A Thrill Ride From Start to Finish”

Kendall Rogers, age 16: “The Most Empowering Game of Truth or Dare”

Lily Meyers, age 14: “Love and Loss”

Claire Lewing, age 16: “The Making of Modern Art”

Ridhi Shashi Kumar, age 17: “‘Before the Flood’: Icebergs Are No Longer Leonardo DiCaprio’s Foes, but His Friends”

Mary Hudak, age 15: “The Masterpieces of Myrna Minnis”

Nicole Guittari, age 17: “Once Was Enough”

Zac Gill, age 15: “Brockhampton: Not Your Average Rappers”

Maeve Donovan, age 14: “Feeling Invisible in ‘Because I Am Furniture’”

Arianna Coan-Prichard, age 16: “The Anomaly”

Emily Bukaty, age 15: “Ellen’s Stardust Diner: An Aspiring Broadway Singer’s Dream Come True”

Jonathan Badonsky, age 16: “‘Loveless’: the Anti-Romantic Comedy”

Hannah Babcock, age 16: “Hauntingly Beautiful”

评委: Amanda Christy Brown, Shannon Doyne, Caroline Crosson Gilpin, Michael Gonchar, Natalie Proulx and Katherine Schulten.

Freetown Sound: Messy, Confusing, and Brilliant

Lily Barnett, age 16


信用。。。艾米丽·贝尔为《纽约时报》撰稿

As minority groups feel increasingly insecure, there’s been a trend for artists to churn out superficial albums that receive praise for their sheer mention of race, gender or sexuality. Real representation of insecurity ought to be messy, just as is the subject itself. Dev Hynes’s third album, under the alias Blood Orange, perfectly encapsulates this dilemma through his politically-charged lyrics and beats reminiscent of the ‘80’s. Titled “Freetown Sound,” Hynes pours his thoughts into the project, making for a raw and hypnotic depiction of identity.

Fans of Hynes will see similarities to previous projects in his powerfully-subdued lyrics, but “Freetown Sound” creates a listening experience far different from the alt-pop boppy anthems of prior albums like “Coastal Grooves.” In Freetown, tracks are broken up through conceptual interludes, like the messy and atmospheric album opener “By Ourselves”. The track features no clear hook and a layer of vocals that creates a state of confusion, setting the perfect tone for the tracks to come. Before ending, the last sentiment of a sample of black slam-poet Ashlee Haze’s “For Colored Girls (The Missy Elliott Poem)” echoes “there are a million black girls waiting to see someone who looks like them” as the statement trails off in free-jazz, clearly leaving the listener who’d come for Hynes’ classic ‘80’s dance beats somewhat confused. However, this album is not just for the abstract-minded listener; one can certainly look to the track “Best to You” for the same blast-with-the-windows-down sensation that might have drawn them to Blood Orange in the first place. And even so, the politicization of the tracks is not so far-fetched to no longer be enjoyable; the track “Desirée,” despite being adorned with samples from queer-minority cult documentary “Paris is Burning,” still manages to flow beautifully in a more conventional sense.

Not only is the album compositionally vital, it really does sound good; it arguably features Blood Orange’s best vocals yet, with his range on full display in “EVP.” In this and other tracks, the heart-thumping rhythm of the gated reverb creates an air of ‘80’s nostalgia. And yet these appealing rhythms have a purpose, as their inspiration draws on a decade filled with immense identification struggle in the midst of political and social turmoil, honing in on Hynes’s own story. Of the problems he addresses — those based on his experiences as a queer black male — none are given clear-cut solutions. There is no one specific question posed by Hynes on these 17 tracks; to most genuinely represent these issues, Hynes proves that there can’t be, given all of their complexity, confusion and frustration.

A Study in Repetition

Connor Crowell, age 16

“Sacred Guitar and Violin Music of the Modern Aztecs” isn’t an album that was ever intended to be reviewed critically — it’s an anthropological record recorded in 1977 by two ethnomusicologists simply looking to catalog the ceremonial music of a dying culture. The album is listed as educational on some websites; it was released on the “Smithsonian Folkways” record label. None of this matters however, when one looks at the album objectively: nobody releases a record so that it isn’t listened to, so there is no reason that “Sacred Guitar and Violin Music of the Modern Aztecs” should not be critiqued as any other album would be.

This is music intended to be listened to during worship ceremonies, but I cannot imagine that even then it wouldn’t grate on the listener after two minutes. The average song on the album goes as follows:

1. Create a joyous violin or guitar riff.

2. Play that riff for eight minutes, or however long you feel like, with varying degrees of success as to whether or not you play the riff correctly each time.

3. That’s it.

There are two songs on the album that are not over five minutes long, and even they begin to wear on you before they end. Some may find the simplicity of these songs charming, a “part of our culture musically that is unexplored,” but any claim of the sort would be ridiculous — repetition is a staple of nearly all European-American music, from the 12 bar blues to the Passacaglias of Bach — we have a repeat sign in musical notation for a reason. The problem with “Sacred Guitar and Violin Music of the Modern Aztecs” isn’t that it’s repetitive, it’s that it never builds on top of that repetition: a repeating phrase with variations in it is an ostinato; a perpetually repeating phrase in the background of a song is a chaconne; a song that is just a repeating phrase is a boring song.

“Sacred Guitar and Violin Music of the Modern Aztecs” is meant as a snapshot of a cultural ceremony that is foreign to the lives and ears of its listeners. It is meant to encourage a diversification of musical tastes, to support a broadening of one’s anthropological and artistic horizons. The album, however, only convinces the listener of one thing: people didn’t go to these ceremonies for the music.

An Incurable Fever

Thorne Kieffer, age 16

The definition of a fever is “a high body temperature, usually accompanied by shivering, headache, and sometimes, delirium.” In his entertaining memoir, “Fever Pitch,” Nick Hornby offers a history of his fever for soccer and his love for his home team Arsenal. It’s a fever that runs so strong it becomes the lens through which Hornby examines his whole life.

“Fever Pitch” is an action-packed narrative, perfect for the avid soccer fan, but a love for sports is not a requisite to enjoying this book. One may not understand every nuanced soccer term Hornby mentions, but that won’t take away from the visceral impact of going to hundreds of soccer games with the author at Highbury Stadium in North London.

Each chapter takes us to a different Arsenal game where Hornby lives through the victories and defeats and provides a running commentary of his concurrent emotional state. He shows us his elation after every big Arsenal victory. Hornby’s perfect day is comprised of, “A 2-0 home victory against the League leaders after a fish-and-chip-lunch.” In 1979 Arsenal makes it to the Cup Final for the second year in row only to lose again, which plunges Hornby into an almost debilitating slump: “I hated Arsenal. The club was a burden I could no longer carry but one that I would never, ever be able to throw off.” Hornby is so invested in Arsenal that, “Arsenal’s moods and fortunes somehow reflected (his) own.” His emotions are dangerously tethered to the successes and failures of his team.

As a subtheme, Hornby provides the reader a wonderful sense of the fierce camaraderie between British soccer fans. His writing is extremely detailed and vivid, so when he takes us to rowdy away games on Wednesday nights, the reader feels they are sitting in the seat beside him. The reader sees fans risk their lives in intense brawls in small British stadiums, where fevered fans just like him scream their lungs out as if they were on the team themselves. One witnesses how English soccer is more than just a sport, it’s a way for people to escape their daily lives and feel emotions on a greater scale. Soccer gives Hornby and his friends a greater sense of hope for their everyday lives.

Although his detailed descriptions of each game are gripping from a soccer standpoint, it is the way Hornby delves into his fluctuating emotions that makes this book a great read. In the end, this memoir is a sensitive description of a young boy’s coming-of-age during his years of fevered devotion to soccer. Hornby grows up through soccer in these pages, and it’s his poignant and growing self-awareness that keeps us reading.