'Round Ireland with a Fridge' by Tony Hawks

Why take a fridge hitch-hiking around Ireland?

Well, Tony Hawks' approach is best summed up by the question why not? Although, it may be fair to spectulate that a £100 drunken bet with a friend may also have played a small part in his motivations.

The account of his journey in 1997 is populated by a cast of Irish eccentrics who seem to have walked off the set of Father Ted and into non-fiction. Indeed, he introduces us to the hierarchy of the many, many Irish pubs he visits including, but not limited to the 'lead drunk'.

As often as not in this book, Tony Hawks himself seems to be making a bid for that title. Indeed, the story is for the most part a collection of barely remembered evenings from a bloke carrying a fridge.

Hawks takes occasional brief but interesting diversions into whether the fridge itself has gained a personality as the result of its travels. Indeed, he christens it 'Saoirse' - the Irish Gaelic word for 'freedom' - somewhat appropriate given that the fridge gives Hawks a certain freedom through the popularity it lends him.

This is helped to a large extent by the helpfulness of the Irish media, who track every step of his journey, doubtless making it easier on a hitch-hiker standing at the side of the road with only a fridge for company.

Throughout this long, seemingly pointless quest, Hawks never loses his easy affability or sense of joy, despite standing in rainstorms which would test the hardiest souls.

His journey, as he admits, taught him very little and he concedes that it did not achieve anything.

Nor did it have to. The story instead serves as a reminder of the importance of pointless endeavours and the never-ending supply of indulgence for such journeys on both sides of the Irish Sea.

'Life of Pi' by Yann Martel (book)

Surrealist and beyond the classification of genre, Life of Pi is a fable (there you go, I tried) that deserves to be read and re-read.

Set initially in Pondicherry, the former French enclave on the east coast of India, our narrator and protagonist is a teenage boy named Piscine Molitor Patel. This name is the cue for many jokes from his school mates of predictable content - he gains the nickname 'Pissing' amongst others.

In an attempt to confound them, he shortens it to Pi, the number that supposedly holds the key to many unresolved questions of the universe. Indeed, the first third of the book largely consists of Pi exploring both religious and atheist philosophies, as if the name were a tag to live up to.

Simultaneously, he faces physical challenges of his own from his stubborn father, a zookeeper, who insists that Pi learn from the animals he keeps about the ruthlessness of survival of the fittest.

This knowledge soon becomes extremely relevant when Pi's father decides to move the family to Canada. All seems set fair on their journey by sea until an accident leaves Pi shipwrecked and seemingly alone.

It is at this point that the tale becomes one of the battle between a young man's de-hydrated and starved logical mind and his overactive imagination. Given the aforementioned surrealism of the novel and that he spends most of his time on the lifeboat in the company of a Bengal tiger, it is fairly easy to guess which of these wins.

In amongst the wreckage, both literal and metaphorical, of Pi's previous life are fragments of hope and courage. Even upon arrival at a mysterious tropical island, which seems to offer a safe haven, Pi remains an unselfish and sympathetic character.

Yet, Life of Pi remains open in its exploration of the darker aspects of basic survival. Despite asking much of Pi, he, and ultimately us as the readers are left with as many questions as answers at the end of the book.

Whilst this is frustrating, it also offers space for further exploration. At times I felt that Life of Pi was a bit too pleased with itself but for the most part it is an intriguing story and remarkably readable given the size of its ideas.

It is also one of the few Booker Prize winning novels that is not completely impenetrable. I now look forward to seeing if Ang Lee's film adaptation lives up to its source material.

PS: Merry Christmas to one and all!

'The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey' dir. Peter Jackson

Ok, so here were my concerns before seeing the first part of this new trilogy:-

1. The Hobbit is not a very long book - only just over 250 pages so how was Peter Jackson going to spread that story across three separate films?

2. Nor is it a sprawling epic in the manner of Lord of The Rings. It is much more of a straighforward narrative of Bilbo Baggins and his adventures.

3. Would any of the content of the book (including vast quantities of drinking, eating and getting lost in the woods) really translate to a Jacksonian three hour epic? Let alone three of them.

Having seen An Unexpected Journey, I am not convinced that any of those issues are resolved.

The film is nonetheless a fun romp through Middle Earth which includes almost the entire British acting profession in its cast. The first among equals is Ian McKellen, who makes a welcome return as Gandalf and, as always, the scenes in which he shouts spells at nasty creatures are particular high points.

Martin Freeman is unsurprisingly excellent as Bilbo, channeling all his knowledge of Tim Canterbury, Arthur Dent and John Watson to the part of the supposed everyman. His homely, awkward manner at the start is soon replaced by an inner toughness that even he was not aware of until the Dwarves dragged him away from The Shire.

Ken Stott, Richard Armitage and James Nesbitt are among the dwarves who ham it up to eleven. Their shared quest is to retrieve their lost kingdom from the dragon Smaug. The fact that Smaug barely even appears in the film is indicative of how much they have stretched the story of the book - perhaps the CGI budget was looking a bit thin.

Appearances from Ian Holm (as the elder Bilbo, narrating), Elijah Wood (the evergreen Frodo), Hugo Weaving (Elrond), Christopher Lee (Saruman), Cate Blanchett (Galadriel) and Andy Serkis (Gollum) all feel a little shoehorned in. Much of one of the more interesting scenes in Rivendell is a discussion between Elrond, Gandalf, Galadriel and Saruman about 'dark portents' and 'the presence of a new evil'. Wonder what that could refer to?

Nevertheless, the atmosphere of the vast majority of the film is entirely different from Lord of The Rings. It is a lighter, more comic tone, in keeping with the book in that respect. The scale feels that much smaller and the characters that much less concerned with the outcome of their quest. Much time is spent drinking, smoking or feasting.

For this reason, some of the scenes seem a little dragged out. Especially one shared by Bilbo and Gollum that seems a bit early in the trilogy for its purpose. Serkis nonetheless manages to convey the usual sense of unease and threat in his performance.

There are some very enthralling and fun sequences in the film but I left the cinema no more convinced that the book has sufficient material to be stretched over three films. It felt altogether looser than Lord of The Rings and whilst this was entertaining at times, it lacked the same intensity.

Worth a look but too spun out for my liking.