Archive for ‘Books’

April 28, 2010

March Books

Nabokov:

  • Lolita:  So, this is one of those books that I’d heard so much about I thought I didn’t actually need to read it.  Boy, was I wrong.  There’s a reason everyone worships Nabokov.  You know the story - narrated by a sardonic, intelligent pedophile, and the most commonly cited example of an unreliable narrator.  Highly recommended.
  • Pnin:  Lighter than Lolita, both amusing and pathetic.  Recommended.
  • Pale Fire:  A puzzle book taking the form of a poem by a famous and recently deceased poet, excessively annotated by a delusional colleague.  One character, or the other, or both may or may not exist.  Metafiction, ambiguous interpretation.  Highly recommended.

Hermann Hesse:  Siddhartha:  Recommended if you are a senior in high school, or a freshman or sophomore in college.  Quick read.  Buddhism exhausts me.

Ursula K. LeGuin:  The Left Hand of Darkness:  Having whet my appetite with Le Guin’s short stories, I thought I’d read one of her novels.  Le Guin’s books and stories often take place in the same sprawling universes, and the particular world of this book was explored in one of the short stories I’d read, which made it easier to follow.  An envoy from a sort of inter-galactic UN spends this book trying to convince two countries on a frozen planet of people with no gender to join the political body he represents.  The novel ends up being a sort of buddy story, wherein two guys cross a frozen tundra.  A good read, and well-written.  Recommended.

Julia Leigh:  Disquiet:  This very brief, haunting novel is reminiscent of The Turn of the Screw.  It takes five minutes to read, and heavily features a dead baby, so how could you resist?  Recommended.

Chris Adrian:  The Children’s Hospital:  God floods the world again, but this time, a children’s hospital floats with the survivors, rather than an ark of animals.  Highly inventive, Adrian’s novel is nevertheless twice as long as it needs to be, and his point and his ending are apparent at least 200 pages before the finish.  Still, some beautiful short stories within this tome.  Recommended.

February 8, 2010

Brief Reviews In a Brief Month

Malone Dies by Samuel Beckett:

Spoiler: Malone Dies. But slowly, oh, so slowly.

The Birthday of the World, stories by Ursula K. Le Guin:

Great short stories by the thinking man’s sci-fi writer. Le Guin is concerned with gender constructs and how they inform societal structure. This book covers pretty much every, single alternate possibility from the system we currently have – some are much better; others are far worse; all are fascinating.

The Funeral Party by Ludmila Ulitskaya:

Spoiler: Someone dies. Much more quickly than Malone did, however, and surrounded and survived by many loving, squabbling mistresses and friends, all Russian. This book made me want to get up before dawn to visit Fulton Fish Market, but it’s doubtful that I ever really will.

Slippage, stories by Harlan Ellison:

Definitely read “The Man Who Rowed Christopher Columbus Ashore” and “Mefisto In Onyx.” Maybe read “Jane Doe #112,” “She’s a Young Thing and Cannot Leave Her Mother,” and “Midnight In the Sunken Cathedral.” Probably skip the rest.

We Tell Ourselves Stories In Order to Live: Collected Nonfiction by Joan Didion:

Joan Didion is The Essayist, period. Each and every one of her sentences is so sharp and on point that if you tripped and fell on this tome, you’d bleed out instantly.

Stories by Anton Chekhov:

Chekhov convincingly speaks in a thousand different voices (although they are all Russian – it’s a really big country).

February 1, 2010

11

I have not been blogging much lately, and so, in the style of the blog 11 Points, here are 11 things that I have been spending my time on lately, and enjoying immensely. All highly recommended:

1. Gail Collins. The New York Times was long overdue for a female columnist who wasn’t Maureen Dowd, and Gail Collins is more than the Times deserves: tart, smart, funny and perceptive, her takes on the issues of the day are both informative and cathartic. I just checked out one of her books, America’s Women: 400 Years of Dolls, Drudges, Helpmates, and Heroines, but have only read the first chapter so far. I’ll let you know how it is. Also, in addition to her columns, Collins’s conversations with David Brooks are a treat. I have to confess, in the past, I have occasionally liked David Brooks, but he’s been heinous lately, and as his tenure at the Times goes on, he contradicts himself ever more blatantly. I dearly love a good journo fight, and Matt Taibbi (an occasional guilty pleasure for me, I’ll admit – his reportage may be spotty, but sometimes you just need a good, unapologetic rant) has lately been picking Brooks’s columns up in his teeth and shaking them back and forth until their necks snap.

2. The public library. I like to write in my books, dogear them, and read them in the shower, so for years, I insisted on buying books and keeping them in piles along my baseboards. But I don’t make that kind of money these days, and have finally learned to make good use of the public library. Yes, the inability to write in the books is a serious handicap, but otherwise, I am a total library convert. There’s a small branch near my house, and I can order whatever I want through the system to be delivered there, and they notify me by email when my holds are ready. Best of all, you can renew your books on the computer, and as long as nobody puts a hold on them, you can renew them indefinitely (I’ve renewed one 12 times already). And all for not one red cent (not counting city taxes). Beat that, Kindle.

3. Susan Schorn’s McSweeney’s column. I go back and forth on McSweeney’s, and particularly on their columnists. Some are good, some are boring, many have long outlived their original gimmick, good for only a post or two, but weirdly extended. But one of their new columns, Susan Schorn’s meditations on martial arts, self-defense, anger, weakness, and related topics, is fantastic – and not just because I’m into karate lately. I agree with Schorn about everything, and wish she lived next door to me, so that I could bother her all the time (and all of her other humor pieces are great, too). Speaking of karate:

4. Shotokan karate. I have been training at a local dojo since August (I’m currently a yellow belt), and I am obsessed. Fantastic exercise, and a wonderful outlet for pent-up aggression, karate is sport, art form, self-defense training and a study in focus and discipline, all in one. I try to make three classes a week, and, while I still couldn’t beat up a four-year-old, my kiai has deepened from Chihuahua to Rottweiler.

5. Jezebel and The Awl. I am putting these together, because my enjoyment of them is similar. For some reason, when Jezebel debuted, I immediately decided that I didn’t care for it. I can’t remember what about it offended me, because I’ve really been enjoying it lately. In addition to the progressive and feminist news alerts, there are hearty round-ups of celebrity gossip. And while I am not interested enough in celebrity garbage to actually read up on it, I must admit, do I want to know when Brad and Angie finally break it off, or when Lindsay Lohan ODs in a club bathroom, or when somebody has a major weight reversal? Yes! Yes, okay? I do want to know that! I admit it! But I don’t need to know the deets – I just want a headline and a photo, and that’s what Jezebel delivers. Now, The Awl, helmed by former Gawker editor, Choire Sicha (aka the only person who ever wrote for Gawker that I actually liked), is a hilarious, well-written chronicle of all things that would particularly interest…well, Brooklyn dwelling, underemployed pseudo-writers like moi. Plus, it is one of those lovely, rare blogs in which the commenters expand on (and often outshine) the posts. Kinder than Gawker and sharper than The Gothamist, The Awl fits just right.  If I could only read one blog, this would probably be it.

6. Amanda Palmer. The former Dresdan Doll has an awesome solo album. Plus, she’s engaged to Neil Gaiman, and showed up at The Golden Globes with her boobs and her pit hair out. She’s a fucking badass.

7. Small, well-done, original blogs. Tiring of sprawling, massive, constantly updating blogs, I have lately been discovering small, creative, focused sites that do one thing and do it well. Edith Zimmerman writes hilarious very short stories. Tom Oatmeal (who I found through EZ) makes milk come out my nose. And firmuhment is continually brilliant and original – scanned documents that inspire essays, short stories, and humor. I’m not sure if firmuhment is a single author deal or a team effort, but every post has obviously had a lot of work put into it, and I appreciate that.

8. Firefox’s new skins. I spent the lion’s share of my day staring at my browser, so anything that makes it more visually appealing makes me happy. Firefox’s new skins are a small adjustment that, surprisingly, makes a big difference. Currently, I’m enjoying Spring II. Goes well with my igoogle theme.

9. Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I resisted getting into this back in high school when everyone was super into it, and haven’t gotten into it since, because I didn’t want to consume seven seasons of TV. But my coworker has them all on DVD. Uncle, okay? I’m through six seasons already, and ready to register as an official member of the Joss Whedon fanbase. In addition to the overall awesomeness of the series, I enjoy identifying basic karate moves in the fight choreography.

10. My new phone. After three shameful years of hitchhiking on my parents’ family plan, I finally ponied up and got my own phone plan, and a phone with a full keyboard and a camera. And man, it makes a huge difference! I no longer wince at the sound of a text message arriving: it doesn’t take me a year to peck out a response anymore, and my phone looks cool and is really fun to use. And yesterday, when my brunch coffee came in a giant bowl with no handle, I was able to document it quickly and easily, no forethought required.

11. My rabbit, Thomasina. Thomasina is so freaking adorable!! And I love having a pet! This was a good move. She’s my little pal, and she does hilarious things and entertains me, and she’s cuddly and fun. Right now, for example, I am trying to write, and she is collapsing her little grass hut on top of her head, and making eyes at the rabbit she thinks lives in my closet mirror! OMG, she’s a gas. I won’t work at all today.

January 15, 2010

I’ve Been Reading: Castle

Eric Loesch returns to the small New York town in which he was born, and purchases an isolated plot of land. He is unsure why he is returning to his hometown, which has long since suffered the declines of shuttered industry, and we, the readers, are unsure what Eric is running from. We know he is exhausted and extremely antisocial, but we don’t know what events have transpired in his recent past. Initially, as Eric purchases his land and goes about re-roofing the house, solving electrical problems, and otherwise fitting up the place, J. Robert Lennon’s Castle seems likely to be a Walden-esque meditation on dropping out and returning to nature.

But then, a mystery is introduced. In looking over his purchasing documents, Eric realizes that there is about an acre in the middle of his property that he does not own, and the owner’s name is blacked out on all of the documents. It now seems that Castle might be a mystery story. But then, it isn’t, quite. Ultimately, it becomes something altogether different, both sharply focused and bewilderingly surreal. The slender novel reveals itself slowly, and the story defies genre. Lennon explores behavior modification; psychological manipulation; control and respect for authority; constructed masculinity; and these concepts’ intersection with recent events in America’s wars, and he gets there through some masterful storytelling. Further explanation would ruin the adventure; just read this one. Lennon’s scope is ambitious, and while in the end, he might not really have the chops to make it thoroughly convincing, still, the book is truly original, and hard to put down.

January 5, 2010

I’ve Been Reading: The Northern Clemency

Philip Hensher’s The Northern Clemency is a giant chunk of a book, about two middle-class families in Sheffield, England, and their lives over several decades, from the 1970s on. As the book opens, Malcolm Glover and his wife, Katherine, are having marital troubles. Malcolm suspects Katherine of having an affair, and he goes missing the same day Alice and Bernie Sellers move in across the street. The two families, awkwardly forced into immediate intimacy by Katherine’s emotional meltdown that first day, become intertwined, mainly through the friendships of their children: Daniel Glover, dashing ladies’ man, Jane Glover, shy and bookish, and Tim Glover, the weirdly intense youngest boy unloved even by his mother; and, across the street, awkward, wooden Francis and carefree, oversexed Sandra. The novel follows the fates of each of these people, as well as a half-dozen of their friends, lovers and acquaintances, and demonstrates how the events of that first day would have repercussions for all of them in the years to come. It also traces the changing fortunes of Sheffield, a coal-mining town in decline, whose children would soon flee to London and Australia.

The book has little in the way of driving plot (it’s more of a survey), but the characters and the settings are finely drawn, and I thought the book was a real page-turner, but then, I really dig this sort of boring, British, drawing-room-type stuff. Of course, any novel or film that makes a point of showing ordinary lives unfolding against a backdrop of historical events is sure to receive positive critical attention, and The Northern Clemency is no exception. Beautifully written and thoroughly absorbing, the book deserves its accolades. However, it continually teases at a plot-twist and resolution that never arrives, so if you’re not into this sort of thing, you’ll probably feel cheated by the time you wind up at page 600.

January 5, 2010

I’ve Been Reading: Nice Big American Baby

This collection of stories by Judy Budnitz begins with its strongest piece, “where we come from,” a story about a pregnant Mexican woman determined to cross the border and give birth to her son on American soil, no matter how many years she has to hold him in to do it. The story is also representative of Budnitz’s key themes – she writes of the relationships between parents (particularly mothers) and children (particularly daughters) and the concern that each has for the other, in childhood and old age (in “flush,” a young woman who has recently miscarried undergoes a mammogram in the stead of her terrified mother; in “visitors,” a young woman’s visiting parents call her frequently from the road, but never arrive). She is also concerned with racism and xenophobia, particularly with the way people react to any incursion on their soil by alien populations (in “nadia,” a group of women torment their good friend’s Russian mail-order bride; in “immersion,” a suburban community is thrown into turmoil when a child visiting from New York City invites a group of black children to swim in the neighborhood pool). Frequently, her stories contain both of these elements (in “miracle,” a white couple gives birth to a black baby, disturbing everyone but the baby’s mother; in “motherland,” an island solely populated by women raped and impregnated by invading soldiers during the previous war caution their daughters against men arriving by sea). Three of the stories take place in futuristic dystopias, and two concern the ways in which surviving a war can cause repercussions in the relationships of future generations.

Nearly all of the stories are successful, and many of them are a joy to read (I particularly enjoyed “where we come from,” “flush,” “visitors,” and “elephant and boy”), but Budnitz’s style here is too overly used these days.  She is fond of magical realism, and each story is kissed with at least one improbable detail or scenario – a narrative twist overused by several of Budnitz’s contemporaries (most notably, Aimee Bender). Because of this pattern, when read all together, the stories can become predictable and tiresome.

December 2, 2009

I’ve Been Reading: Great Jones Street

Well, I can now say I’ve read a novel by Don DeLillo. I don’t know, guys. I just didn’t get it. It seemed…stupid.

Exhausted and disillusioned by fame, rock star Bucky Wunderlick holes up in a girlfriend’s apartment in the Bowery, in the days before all seediness was priced right out of Manhattan. His girlfriend eventually shows up with two packages – a crazy amazing new drug that everyone wants to be the first to market, and the elusive ‘Mountain Tapes’ that Bucky recorded in seclusion, and which everyone wants to distribute. Various factions (Bucky’s former band mate, the corporate behemoth that manages him, an anarchic commune, and some sort of violent gang) all descend on Bucky’s apartment, after one or both of the packages. Bucky weathers all of this with equanimity, thinking about going back on tour, or killing himself, or murdering someone. This is supposedly about the overall vibe of the time (late sixties). Or something.

Okay, but first of all: a rock God named ‘Bucky?’ Bucky is the name of a cartoon beaver. Not a rock star. And what the hell was this book about, anyway? And I really don’t need to read any fictional song lyrics, particularly not two entire chapters full of them, and what the fuck – reproducing the copyright info? Seriously?

I didn’t get it, and would have to read it a second time to say anything intelligent about it, and although it’s a short novel, I have no interest in doing that. I will read another DeLillo someday, though, as I did not give him a fair shake this time through, and people freaking love him, so there must be something there. I should probably read White Noise.

And I will say, the writing in Great Jones Street is really good, even if it doesn’t outline anything I can really grab ahold of; and many of the minor characters are fantastic (I would have enjoyed a novel centered on any one of them), even if I can’t see their purpose in the narrative. Also, there are passages like this:

Americans pursue loneliness in various ways. For me, Great Jones Street was a time of prayerful fatigue. I became a half-saint, practiced in visions, informed by a sense of bodily economy, but deficient in true pain. I was preoccupied with conserving myself for some unknown ordeal to come and did not make work by engaging in dialogues, or taking more than the minimum number of steps to get from place to place, or urinating unnecessarily.

Yes.

November 7, 2009

I’ve Been Reading: The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao

Oscar Cabral is a doughy, sci-fi loving virgin. His sister, Lola, is a tough, pragmatic survivor of her own rebellious youth, and his mother, Beli, is an even tougher survivor of her own romantic past and of the brutal and repressive Trujillo regime. The women are as resilient and capable as Oscar isn’t. Lola reinvents herself as the traditional American success story; Beli survives brutal violence and comes back kicking; but Oscar can’t even manage to kill himself effectively. The Carbral family has its origins in the restive Dominican Republic, and has since resettled in New Jersey, bringing with them plenty of baggage and a possible curse from their ancestral land. The Cabrals love hard, lastingly and disastrously, and the unlikely Oscar exemplifies this family trait most of all.

Narrated primarily by Yunior, Lola’s well-meaning but hopeless playboy suitor, the novel’s energetic and entertaining voice is perhaps its strongest element. Diaz writes with enthusiasm, sweeping the reader along through multiple generations, from the DR to Brooklyn to Jersey and back, with quick jumps down to footnotes which ground the reader in the Dominican history of which the narrator candidly assumes our ignorance. Junot Diaz is a solid writer, whose future work I won’t hesitate to pick up, but I wouldn’t number his book among my favorites, and I doubt it will stay with me long. Diaz has original voice down and handles his material with skill and authority…but I’m not sure the material he’s handling is anything much, and his characters are cartoonish types (particularly the women). The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao is a fun read, but for me, it doesn’t get at anything that resonates, and I’m unconvinced it has much real depth despite the accolades it has received.

October 28, 2009

I’ve Been Reading: Wetlands

Charlotte Roche’s Wetlands is a novel about a girl and her asshole. No, really – exhaustively and all the way through, this novel centers on 18-year-old Helen Memel’s butchered asshole. Having nicked something major during her regular and highly involved shaving routine, Helen is lying in a hospital bed “with my skirt hiked up and my underpants pulled down, ass toward the door.” But she’s not embarrassed about that, or anything else. While she lies there in recovery, Helen ruminates obsessively on her favorite themes – her body, its byproducts and the fun she can have with them. All of this is shockingly explicit, but if you ask yourself why it’s shocking, being (as it is) so utterly everyday and banal a subject (essentially, a long version of ‘everybody poops’), you get closer to Roche’s ultimate purpose.

Wetlands is essentially a protest novel. Helen is merely particularly interested in her body; Roche, on the other hand, is furious that Helen’s interests and comfort with herself could be as rare and shocking as they (to many) are. True, all bodily functions are hidden, but some are more hidden than others – specifically, women’s. Roche’s target here is the sanitized woman: society’s obsession with hair removal, its primitive taboos about menstruation and vaginal cleanliness, its commercial tendency to tiptoe around women’s genitalia with cutesy, pink crap, as though vaginas themselves are an inside joke.

Undoubtedly, bodily secretions are nothing to be ashamed of; whether or not they are interesting is another question altogether. As Helen prods, picks at and wipes herself continuously, the book becomes tedious. Other people’s fluids, like their dreams and their college photo albums, are ultimately of no interest to anyone but themselves. Helen also has family drama and a new love interest, and she is scared and alone and putting on a brave face, but these plot points were clearly thought up after Roche settled on her theme. They feel tacked on, and the ending takes a leap into the surreal that is entirely unjustified by the chapters leading up to it.

Which isn’t to say Wetlands doesn’t have something to offer. Helen is an endearing and original character. And as a feminist howl, the book succeeds – Roche’s point is certainly a valid one that needs to be made more often. Still, she probably could have made it just as well in a ten-page short story.

October 26, 2009

I’ve Been Reading: Atmospheric Disturbances

Rivka Galchen’s surreal tale of psychiatrist Leo Liebenstein’s search for his missing wife, Rema, is an absolute joy to read. In fact, it’s probably one of my favorite books I’ve read this year.

One day, Rema comes home with a puppy, and Leo immediately realizes that his wife has been replaced by a nearly identical simulacrum. But where did she go, and why, and who is this new person bent on impersonating her? Leo’s determination to recover his true love and crack the mystery of his disappearance takes him to Argentina, to the home of Rema’s estranged mother, Magda, and then to remote Patagonia, with the Doppelganger dogging his every step. Behind all of these strange happenings lurks Tzvi Gal-Chen, the mysterious research meteorologist of the Royal Academy of Meteorology, who has possibly hired Leo to battle the evil 49 Quantum Fathers.

The novel charts one man’s struggle to retain his grip on reality, but really, it is about love — its subjectiveness, its inexplicableness, the ways in which we make it up and find it and lose it and manufacture it again. Galchen’s novel brings to mind Borges and Kafka, but it also reminded me of The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time. Atmospheric Disturbances is hilarious and involving with not a single boring passage, and I highly recommend it.

___
(By the way, Galchen is one of those entirely hateable people – she’s an M.D. with an MFA from Columbia, and she looks stunning [and about 25] in her book jacket photo.  Fuck her, am I right?)

October 10, 2009

I’ve Been Reading: Netherland

Shortly after 9/11, Hans van den Broek’s wife leaves him alone in New York City – in the Chelsea Hotel, no less – and returns to England with their young son. For the next two years, Hans commutes to London every other weekend, and spends the rest of his time aimlessly distracting himself in post-disaster New York. He becomes involved with a cricket league composed of various immigrants and enjoys thinking back to his youthful days of playing cricket in The Hague, where he was born. One player is Chuck Ramkissoon, a charismatic and eccentric Trinidadian mover-and-shaker, who has his fingers in all sorts of pies. Hans finds himself more and more involved with Chuck, drawn into his mysterious world.

Joseph O’Neill’s Netherland is largely about cricket, which is something I can’t get a mental picture of at all. Hans himself admits that:

The uninitiated onlooker at a cricket game is . . . puzzled by the alternation of two batsmen and two bowlers and two sets of stumps. . . . It can take a while before the puzzle is sufficiently solved, particularly for the American viewer. I can’t count the number of times I, in New York, fruitlessly tried to explain to a baffled passerby the basics of the game taking place in front of him, a failure of explanation and comprehension that soon irritated me and led me to give up.

As elusive as the cricket descriptions, however, the various illustrations of New York City neighborhoods, landmarks and institutions are lovely, from the Herald’s Square DMV to the Greenwood Cemetery. O’Neill has a knack for setting, and his brief descriptions cut right to the essence of a place. And in Netherland, O’Neill is expansive on the subject of New York. Critics have compared this book to Gatsby, and indeed the mapping is unavoidable: Chuck Ramkissoon is found floating in the Gowanus Canal at the beginning of the novel, and the comparisons only start there. The book spends time on the American dream, the idea that any hard-working dreamer can go rags-to-riches, and Chuck is the ultimate schemer. When Rachel asks Hans about Chuck’s politics, Hans realizes he has no idea:

The decisive item, if I’m going to be honest about this, was that Chuck was making a go of things. The sushi, the mistress, the marriage, the real estate dealings, and, almost inconceivably, Bald Eagle Field: it was all happening in front of my eyes. While the country floundered in Iraq, Chuck was running. That was political enough for me, a man having trouble putting one foot in front of the other.

And yet, for all its Gatsbyish notes, Netherland is not really about America, precisely because it is such a love song to New York City, and any American who spends upwards of a minute in NYC knows that it’s not remotely representative of the 50 states proper (not that any one location really is). But then, in another sense, the quintessential American dream is realistically centered in NYC, because so many immigrants arrive here, join communities of immigrants from their own countries, and live and work here for generations. I’ve met people who’ve lived here for years and have never been anywhere else in the country. This city is more of an international crossroads than a fixed location; it is the most international place I have ever been, which is one big reason why I love it.* In this respect (the gathering of the teeming masses), New York is the ultimate representation of an American ideal – albeit America as it never really was, and most emphatically is not now. But somewhere back there, in between the Puritans and the ’50s, there was a time when New York was thought to be representative of the country itself. Later, after relocating to London, Hans observes:

Although it’s not a secret that I lived for some time in [New York], I’m not accorded any unusual atuhority. This isn’t because I’ve been back for awhile but, rather, because I’m precluded by nationality from commenting on any place other than Holland – one of those parochialisms, I am pissed off to rediscover, that remind me that as a foreign person I’m essentially of some mildly buffoonish interest to the English and deprived, certainly, of the nativity New York encourages even its most fleeting visitor to imagine for himself. And it’s true: my secret, almost shameful feeling is that I am out of New York – that New York interposed itself, once nad for all, between me and all other places of origin.

But commenting on the American dream is not the main thrust of Netherland – this is primarily a book about Hans, and Hans is intrigued by Chuck, but in a removed, and not overly involved way. Whereas Carraway’s raison d’etre as narrator was to observe and describe Gatsby, Hans’s relationship with Chuck is a take-it-or-leave-it sort of friendship, as is everything in Hans’s life at that time. In fact, the motivations of all of the characters in Netherland are fuzzy at best. We don’t really know why Rachel leaves Hans – mostly because Hans, a rather unreliable narrator, will not admit to having any idea himself. We don’t really know why Hans stays obediently behind in New York for as long as he does (again, he doesn’t spend much mental time on it himself), or why everyone in the novel seems to suffer from a confusing and painful ennui (“I wasn’t especially troubled by the hours spent flat on my face,” says Hans, of his habit of lying for hours with his head under the armchair in his hotel room). Perhaps it has something to do with 9/11 itself, which, while mercifully not focused on in much outrageous detail, bookends the story of these people, looms slightly behind them without their ever looking straight at it, just as the actual event framed New York itself and everything that happened here for some time. Hans: “We were trying to understand, that is, whether we were in a preapocalyptic situation, like the European Jews in the thirties or the last citizens of Pompeii, or whether our situation was merely near-apocalyptic, like that of the Cold War inhabitants of New York, London, Washington, and, for that matter, Moscow.” But Hans’s mourning has far less to do with 9/11, and more with the fracturing of his family, and his lack of ability to shake off his own inertia:

The difficulty was not merely that I couldn’t think of an alternative to the program of traveling to London once or twice a month. No, my difficulty was that I could not disarrange the boundless, freezing dismay that undermined every personal motion I attempted. It was as if, in my inability to produce a movement in my life, I had fallen victim to the paralysis that confounds actors in dreams as they vainly try to run or talk or make love.

Perhaps Netherland is more about the time it takes to shake off a tragedy – something unreasonable and inexplicable happens, and people totter away from its epicenter, where, stunned and confused, they distractedly go on with their lives.

At any rate, I didn’t care. Nobody could call this a bad book – it won the PEN/Faulkner, after all – and I paged through it readily enough, but it left no deep impression on me, and I wouldn’t ever urge it on someone.

__
*Oh, yes, by the by – I love NY now, for those of you I haven’t spoken to in awhile.  I had my reservations for the first couple years, but now I’m like a googly-eyed newlywed, and am currently entirely convinced this is the only place to be (in the US, anyway).
September 12, 2009

I’ve Been Reading: All Shall Be Well; and All Shall Be Well; and All Manner of Things Shall Be Well

Burt Hecker thinks he was born in the wrong century. He believes that true progress stopped in the Middle Ages, and devotes himself fully to that era, wearing medieval robes, drinking home-brewed mead, and doing nothing OOP – out of period. He is the founder of the Confraternity of Times Lost Regained (think Renn Fair circuit, pre-Renn), which meets at his wife Kitty’s Mansion Inn. Tod Wodicka’s novel opens in Germany, where Burt has journeyed with a chant group that celebrates the life of Hildegard von Bingen, a medieval anchoress and mystic. Ordered by the Court to join the chant group as an anger management alternative (after being arrested for DWI), Burt at the novel’s opening is widowed, estranged from both of his grown children, depressed, and has secretly purchased a one-way ticket to Germany. He has sold his wife’s Inn, and does not plan on returning to the US; rather, he hopes to search for his long missing son, Tristan, who is living in Prague.

As the novel unfolds, Burt’s past is slowly unraveled through flashbacks, while in the present day, he travels to Prague in search of his son. We learn how he met his wife, the crucial role his mother-in-law played in their relationship, of his wife’s excruciating death from cancer, and the circumstances that led to both Burt’s children disowning him entirely. Or, well, we sort of learn that. Burt is the very definition of an unreliable narrator, and seems unable to admit to himself in the retelling what it was about him and his lifestyle that caused his children to find him detestable, rather than merely eccentric and pitiable. Wodicka has stuffed this novel with fantastic, original characters – too many to recount here, in fact; each character, no matter how minor, is well drawn and compelling. But these characters spend the majority of the novel expressing their intense anger and frustration at a high volume, but with no conviction – I could never quite determine why everybody was so very pissed.

ASBW is original, interesting and entertaining, but ultimately, I found it tedious. It’s as if Wodicka came up with a fantastic hero, and then couldn’t quite figure out what to do with him – Burt keeps leading up to an insight he is ultimately unable or unwilling to express.

September 12, 2009

I’ve Been Reading: Cheating at Canasta

These short stories by William Trevor are mostly sad, still and contemplative in tone, reminiscent even when the action is unfolding in the present. They involve a cast of characters mostly pressing anxiously into their golden years, seemingly hoping for nothing more than the healing hand of time to make all their past pains and sorrows remote and irrelevant. In “Cheating at Canasta”, a man visits an old Venetian haunt of his and his recently deceased wife, and hears newlyweds arguing about trivialities at the next table; in “At Olivehill”, grown siblings try to convince their aging mother to turn the family forest into a golf course; in “Old Flame”, an elderly woman surreptitiously reads a letter from her husband’s former mistress that the mistress’s companion of many years has died. Other stories concern crimes, many of which are concealed or ambiguous, and whether or not actual guilt matters when you know in your heart you are guilty. In “The Dressmaker’s Child”, a man runs over the child of a social outcast late at night; in “Men of Ireland”, a man visits his boyhood priest and successfully blackmails him by accusing him of molestation that never occurred; in “Bravado”, a young girl watches her boyfriend beat up and kill another boy, and seizes on a thinly offered possible explanation that makes the act seem somewhat less heinous.

If the characters in Cheating at Canasta are praying for time to pass in order to heal their wounds, it is possibly because those wounds fester far longer than they should. Trevor seems particularly interested in how long it takes varying people to get over pain, and the duty of other people to honor their loved ones’ mourning periods, to respect the time it takes. In “The Children”, a couple breaks their engagement when the man’s daughter feels her deceased mother is being forgotten; in “Folie a Deux”, a man runs into a childhood friend who had never recovered his equilibrium after the two carelessly drowned the family dog.

But the characters of Trevor’s stories also know that every wound, however deep and festering, can eventually result in greater strength and knowledge. As the protagonist of “Cheating at Canasta” thinks to himself: “Shame isn’t bad . . . Nor the humility that is its gift.”

August 27, 2009

I’ve Been Reading: Winner of the National Book Award

Shit, I had some vague idea I might write this book one day, but it seems Jincy Willett has beaten me to the punch (and undoubtedly done a better job of it than I would have).

Winner of the National Book Award concerns twin sisters, Dorcas and Abigail Mather. Dorcas is all brain, and Abigail is all appetite: while Dorcas grows up, tart and intelligent, a librarian who loves bird watching and heavy drinking, and is always armed with a witty comeback, Abigail feeds constantly on attention, sex and food, growing plump and slick, and popular with husbands all across their small Rhode Island town. As Dorcas describes them in their girlhood:

‘When I was twelve, and An American Tragedy was my favorite summer book, my sister thrilled to Forever Amber, especially the scene where Amber, trying to rekindle the passion of Bruce Carleton, her first rapist, appears at the King’s Ball in a beaded gown that makes her breasts stand out “like full pointed globes.” I had to call Abigail “Amber” all that summer. She had been “Scarlett” the previous spring. Already Abigail was coming down in the world.’

The novel opens with Dorcas holed up in her library as a hurricane bears down on Rhode Island. With no way to avoid it, she sits down to read her sister’s recently published autobiographical memoir, about how she killed her husband. Abigail is currently in a women’s penitentiary, awaiting her trial.

The novel proceeds within this frame – Dorcas reminisces back through the sisters’ shared history as she disgustedly reads her sister’s memoir. The memoir is co-written by Hilda DeVilbiss, who Abigail met on her postal route years ago. Hilda is married to Guy, a whiny, infantile, self-aggrandizing intellectual, the satisfaction of whose various needs is Hilda’s mission in life. When Guy demands he meet Abigail, the sisters become unenthusiastic friends of the couple, who soon introduce them to Conrad Lowe, Guy’s college roommate. Conrad is a type-perfect misogynist, sadistic and manipulative – in the same way that Dorcas is all intellect and Abigail is all appetite, Conrad is also more type than individual. He seizes on Dorcas as a contradiction in terms, the world’s only “honorable woman,” and marries Abigail in order to better fuck with the sisters. Dorcas tries to stay close to her sister and shield her somewhat from Conrad’s abuse, without becoming involved with him on any level. This proves an impossibility, of course, and the three are drawn into endless warfare that ends in Abigail’s imprisonment.

Through exaggerating and focusing on each of her character’s primary motivations, Willett perfectly elucidates the conflict between men and women, and women and women. The Mather sisters seem to me to be two aspects of the same person – I don’t think I’m reading too much into the novel to say that they represent the liberated woman’s struggle to satisfy her romantic and sexual needs without compromising her dignity and autonomy. As Dorcas explains to Conrad:

“Abigail and I divided up the world. Sacred and profane. Spiritual and physical. Mind and body.”

Abigail is pure id: immediately upon entering puberty, she revels in being gang raped. When she meets Conrad, she is nearly 200 pounds, an enthusiastic eater who has never dieted. She is naked, unexamined need, unembarrassed, never shy. While Abigail has slept with nearly every man in town, she has never been in love with any of them personally; of course, she falls hard for Conrad, and, to Dorcas’s horror, becomes meek and compliant in the face of his abuse. The scene in which Abigail pines for Conrad, who meanwhile calls Dorcas up for a date, seems to me to be symbolic of a woman wrestling with her own irrational desire: Abigail keens on the sofa like a dog in heat, while Dorcas panics at her sister’s brute, out of control need. She slaps Abigail across the face and douses her with a giant pot of cold water. At Abigail’s begging insistence, Dorcas agrees to have dinner with the hateful Conrad. At dinner, she tells him he’s a bad person, and is to stay away from them, but when she wakes in the morning, he is in Abigail’s bed.

Conrad seizes on Abigail’s weight as her Achilles’ heel, and Abigail develops anorexia and dwindles down to nothing. Meanwhile, Conrad works on Dorcas by manipulating her into frequent bouts of heavy drinking with him, flattering her intelligence and uniqueness. Dorcas is unwillingly susceptible to suggestions that she is mythically superior; this is her weak spot.

Perhaps I am reading too much in, however, when I say they also seem to personify the two factions of feminism currently holding each other in uneasy alliance. Dorcas and Abigail love, but do not really like one another. Dorcas says of her sister:

I know Abigail better than anyone else in the world, and if I were asked to explain this or that particular thing, I could probably give a fairly accurate account of her motivations. I can report that duty has never played an even minor part in her decisions; that she is moved solely by the desire for pleasure and the avoidance of pain; that she derives pleasure from an astonishing variety of sources, and pain from astonishingly few; and so on. I can even predict her behavior, with a respectable success rate.

But I don’t understand her at all. To understand you have to do more than predict and explain. You must feel some degree of empathy. I have a greater understanding of cats and internal combustion engines and Iranians than I do of my twin sister, Abigail.

Both sisters are powerful, but Abigail’s power stems from fully embracing her sexual role, and Dorcas’s from rejecting it outright. While Dorcas is disgusted by Abigail’s appetites (Dorcas: “My sister has great power, but no dignity.”), she respects her sister’s ferocity and is shocked when Abigail becomes a doormat at Conrad’s hand. The indignity of sex having always been insupportable to Dorcas, she is now witnessing the greater humiliation of love, which is entirely beyond her. Dorcas cannot bear to be treated like a thing, as if she would be of some practical use to another person. When Conrad Lowe admires her legs, she says of the experience:

To be judged desirable, to have any part of my body found desirable, was insupportable to me. Somehow he had known immediately what course of action would be the most vicious. . . . I saw myself for the first time as a thing, a thing in someone else’s mind. Of course I had always acknowledged my body, the fact of my visibility, but I had not been a thing really, because I had been of no use. . . . “

Abigail, on the other hand, prefers at all times to be treated as a thing, to be seen as a practical means to an end, but she takes deep offense at being treated like an idea, romanticized or mythologized, turned into something theoretical that she is not. Dorcas tries to help Abigail figure out why Hilda’s initial introduction of her to Guy had offended her so:

Dorcas: “Because…you were being treated like a thing.”

“I like being treated like a thing.”

“Nothing degrades you, does it?”

“Yes! She degraded me . . . She treated me like an idea! That’s it. She treated me like an idea. Can you imagine the nerve?”

Guy serves as foil to Conrad Lowe; Guy’s demonstrative feminism is a thin cover for his inability to look directly at any woman. Whereas Conrad sees women primarily as disgusting and inferior bodies (a former gynecologist, he says of his former career: “Women fall apart like they’re made in Taiwan. The whole female works is a model for planned obsolescence. They get lumps, rashes, discharges, gross smells. They bleed. Or they don’t bleed. Whichever, they worry about it. Their insides fall out, like the udder on a cow.”), Guy (an artist, who mostly sculpts his wife’s vagina in endless series) sees only his own imaginings:

I had never known Guy to remark on any woman’s physical aspect. With Guy there was always the pretense that we were pure spirit, pure intellect and “sexuality,” and our bodies were incidental, negligible, beside the point.

Conrad uses this gap in his friend’s understanding to humiliate him in company:

They would talk about women, about oneself, as though women were nothing but ambulatory body parts, the container of the thing contained, the part for the whole. They would tell repugnant jokes with horrid imagery, comparing us to carnivorous plants, dead carp, snails. At such times Conrad Lowe would eventually extract from Guy some explicit hateful remark, some punchline of his own, and then he would abandon Guy, slip out form under him like a retracted gangplank. Lowe’s face would transmogrify, the contagiously filthy-minded young man would disappear, and in its place would be this bemused adult with an ironic face, staring at his old chum in mild wonder. And there would be poor Guy, the focus of shocked attention, and the echo of his own obscenity ringing in everyone’s ears like cookware spilling from a closet.

Conrad Lowe is pure hate, a patriarchal symbol referred to repeatedly as “the dominant male.” He is determined to drive a wedge between the sisters, to destroy them both and bend them to his will. Dorcas describes him on first meeting him:

The man was obviously a sadist, a manipulator. I despised him instantly. He inspired in me an absurd crusading zeal.

It was the oddest, most unhinging thing. I hated him, gladly. It was as though I had waited all my life to do battle with this terrible man, and the unhinging aspect of my emotion was the gratitude, the bridal joy.

At first, it seems clear that Abigail is the more vulnerable of the two, but in the end, Dorcas proves no less susceptible to Conrad’s hatred. Perhaps more nefarious (and realistic) than his overt abusiveness is Conrad’s ability to thoroughly occupy nearly all of both sisters’ time and attention over years. Dorcas speaks of her peace of mind and serenity whenever she is briefly apart from Abigail and Conrad; toward the novel’s end, the couple manages to pressure her into actually moving into their house, and while Dorcas tries repeatedly to distance herself and reclaim her own life, she is inevitably drawn back in. She can’t even take a day trip to a park without them inviting themselves along, and when she tries to hike of by herself for a minute, and they follow her, she screams:

‘”What are you people? Twelve? Five? Stupid? . . . Leave me alone! For pity’s sake!”‘

Oh, lest I forget to mention: Winner of the National Book Award is really funny. Hilarious, in fact, and much more broad and subtle than my chosen excerpts make it seem (the few reviews of the book I’ve been able to find do not even mention the themes I’ve focused on here). It’s also an ugly book, really, but it’s an ugliness nobody ever nails with total accuracy. There are two possibilities here: either I am reading way too much into this novel, and it is simply a very clever and entertaining satire, or I am correct in suspecting that Willett has done something brilliant and subversive here. Either way, I’m quite sure Willett at least knows exactly what she is doing.

August 24, 2009

I’ve Been Reading: I’ll Let You Go

Ah, the many intricacies of the quirky rich. Bruce Wagner’s I’ll Let You Go is sprawling, detailed and difficult to summarize, but the story mainly concerns – as do so many stories, I’m realizing (only recently, I have read a number of novels based on this same plot – The Last Samurai, Petropolis, His Illegal Self) – a boy’s search for his vanished father. At the beginning of the novel, Toulouse Trotter is informed by his cousin Lucy that his father is not, as he’d been led to believe up to his current age of 12, dead, but rather has simply disappeared. Further inquiries reveal that Toulouse’s father, Marcus, vanished the night of his son’s conception, the night of his wedding to Katrina Trotter – vanished from the bridal bed, which was located high atop an architectural wonder, a perfect recreation of France’s ruined tower, La Colonne Detruite, which Katrina’s father, Louis, had secretly commissioned for the happy couple as a wedding gift. This revelation launches Toulouse and his cousins on a search for their missing relative, and what they uncover will have profound implications for the entire, extended Trotter clan.

There’s no point in here summarizing the many quirks of the Trotters, and the intricacies of their familial relations, which include, among other things, Alzheimer’s, drug addiction, compulsive real estate purchasing, rare genetic orphan disease, puppy-incest, misdirected philanthropy, schizophrenia, devoted servants, celebrity best friends and an immortal Great Dane. Wagner’s Trotters would feel at home with the Royal Tennenbaums or the George Bluths. Unlike the latter family, however, the Trotters, as well as their friends and acquaintances, are continually trying to do good by others, but their motives are rarely pure and their efforts are always fruitless. Toulouse’s Aunt Joyce gives proper burials to dead babies found in dumpsters, to assuage her guilt over her own son, Edward, who suffers from a disfiguring and debilitating rare congenital disorder, and who she was unable to bring herself to visit in hospital for the first months of his life. Her husband, Dodd, conceives a grand rebuilding of his old grade school, but his plans are impractical and despite his placement on the Forbes list, he is humiliated to discover none of his former classmates have any recollection of him. Lani, a minor though important character, has become an advocate for children in the foster care system because she feels a proud obligation to help the less fortunate, but secretly, she is too terrified of the bad parts of town to meet with any of her clients. The parallel storyline in the novel follows the travails of the unfortunate Amaryllis Kornfeld, an abused and neglected orphan, as she is shunted through the hopeless purgatory that is the LA foster system. Amaryllis is a wide-eyed, sweet, resilient wraith straight out of Dickens, and the loathsome foster parents and wrecked children Amaryllis encounters in the system are likewise Dickensian villains – rotten, selfish and cruel.

Reflecting back a few weeks after having read it, I find that my overall impression of the novel is of the aptly named Trotters (not a one of which can stand to sit still) flitting all over and around numerous solid, massive, grand and immobile architectural structures. Much is made of these structures, as backdrop to the Trotter family life, and the structures have their own function in the story. Most obvious is La Colonne, the ruined tower of the Trotter’s ill-fated honeymoon, still stands and functions as a sort of shrine. It’s repeatedly implied that the tower itself – a replica of the Parisian landmark Katrina and Marcus visited shortly before one of Marcus’s breakdowns – is responsible for the fracturing of his psyche (and their family). As Marcus writes to Katrina, “The Tower had become a conspirator – against us, and our happiness. The Tower had to be placated. It was such a beauteous thing; we are often trapped within wondrous designs, without explanation . . . .” Other structures include the European-style village Dodd Trotter specially erected for his wheelchair-(or actually, small efficient buggy-)bound son to easily navigate, complete with movie theater, book store and inn; the topiary mazes that Katrina designs for a living, including one designed for the Alzheimer’s patients at the home where her mother is eventually installed; the gigantic, elaborate insane school complex planned by Dodd Trotter; Louis Trotter’s sacred Withdrawing Room filled with dozens of scale models of grave site memorials commissioned of famous architects by Louis, to adorn his own cemetery plot. All of these edifices are artificial, and all erected at great time and expense to compensate for the lack of something in the particular lives of the wealthy Trotters.

Unique buildings are the fixed points in the Trotters’ lives, but the Trotters themselves are constantly mobile. Early in the novel, Toulouse complains of his mother’s continual jet setting. Marcus’s breakdowns often manifest in his walking insane distances in a fugue state. Edward and Lucy first roll into focus on Edward’s special golf cart, which he is rarely not pottering around in. He also has a 747 simulator, which Lucy and Toulouse use for their trysts. Speaking of jets, there is a short digression in the middle of the book that follows the Trotter children on a round-the-world summer school trip, in which they visit multiple countries in three weeks. I’m not entirely certain how this episode is meant to function within the larger novel, but it was entertaining, not least because Diane Keaton and her daughter were randomly along for half of the journey, for seemingly no narrative purpose at all.

Primarily, I’ll Let You Go is about estrangement and reunion. The novel begins with some Trotters closely bound and others geographically and emotionally distant. As Marcus moves back into the family, the bonds shift, drawing some family members closer and pushing others away. But it is not distance or death alone that separates us from our closest contacts – people change, they develop, they regress, they turn out to be not at all who you thought they were. And yet physically, they remain. Perhaps even more painful than losing loved ones to death or abandonment is losing them to complete personality overhauls.

Wagner’s novel is difficult to categorize. It’s sophisticated and intelligent social satire, it’s a good yarn based around an archetypal plot, it’s a romantic flight of fancy. It contains enough symbols, parallels, themes and irony to recommend it to high school lit teachers seeking material for infinite five-point essays. The book is as windy and impressive a structure as anything built by the Trotters, but readers will find their way through quickly and easily enough.

August 24, 2009

I’ve Been Reading: A Boy’s Own Story

“But I feel very drawn to other men,” I said. Although something defiant in me forced these words out, I felt myself becoming a freak the moment I spoke. My hair went bleach-blond, my wrist went limp, my rep tie became a lace jabot: I was the simpering queen at the grand piano playing concert versions of last year’s pop tunes for his mother and her bridge club. There was no way to defend what I was. All I could fight for was my right to choose my exile, my destruction.

So speaks Edmund White’s teenage protagonist in A Boy’s Own Story, echoing the concerns of many a burgeoning American homosexual: how to be openly gay without being received as a cartoon, a lisping, prancing stereotype. While White’s Boy speaks from 1950s New England, this particular concern is unfortunately still relevant today. This story – the first in a trilogy of autobiographical novels – charts the unnamed protagonist’s various young affairs and attempts to override his homosexuality (psychotherapy, religion, dating, relationships with everyone from Bohemian adults to popular peers). As each attempt ends in futile frustration, the Boy gradually approaches an acceptance of and candor about his true, unavoidable self, which is the arc of any coming-of-age tale.

White is a fantastic writer, describing the shades of emotion of his teenage protagonist with economical precision and subtle humor. White’s Boy is quiet and introspective, a keen and insightful observer of the society around him, but at the same time, like any adolescent, he finds the motives and opinions of others inscrutable. As he attempts to suss out his place in the social structure and the extent to which his sexual desires and social longing are normal and realizable, he weathers the sort of awkward fumblings, misunderstandings, humiliations and hurt feelings that all young people must plow through. While it was certainly no picnic being gay in the ’50s, it’s really never much fun being a teenager of any persuasion, anytime, anywhere.

August 24, 2009

I’ve Been Reading: Reading Like a Writer

Most writers were heavy readers first; most heavy readers eventually try their hand at writing. Some successful writers pick up their trade through osmosis, but most need to carefully study their predecessors, to parse their work and identify precisely how they pulled it off. Francine Prose’s Reading Like a Writer explains (largely by example) how to be a close reader, mostly with the aim of instructing would-be writers in how to model their own prose. She begins, appropriately, with words, moves onto sentences and then paragraphs; after examining the basic components of text itself, she discusses the larger elements of fiction writing. She also includes an entire chapter raving about Chekhov, simply because she’s totally nuts for him. Nothing wrong with that.

Prose loves reading, and this book makes you want to read, even if her devotion to meticulous close reading makes the entire endeavor seem as exhausting as it is exhaustive. Personally, I am not a close reader. I am a frantic reader. While I appreciate Prose’s call to read less and better, I can’t get over feeling like I’m racing the clock. There are only so many books you can get through in a lifetime, and there are an infinite number of books I really want to read. Since graduating from college, I have never once reread a book, which is, of course, a shame. If anyone should feel at leisure to read closely and carefully, it would be me, as I currently have nothing but free time, but still, I read quickly, in gulps. Which, incidentally, is the best way to read non-fiction (or at least, to read non-fiction for informational purposes).

But fiction is about the read itself. Prose says, of reading Chekhov on a long daily bus commute during a particularly dismal period of her life:

Reading Chekhov, I felt not happy, exactly, but as close to happiness as I was likely to come. And it occurred to me that this was the pleasure and mystery of reading, as well as the answer to those who say that books will disappear. For now, books are still the best way of taking great art and its consolations along with us on the bus.

August 9, 2009

I’ve Been Reading: Burn This Book

This slim book, edited by Toni Morrison, has eleven short essays originally delivered by various PEN writers on the issue of “censorship and the power of the written word.” There’s an interesting divide here between the authors whose subjects have not generally been political (John Updike, Francine Prose, Russell Banks) and those writers who live and work in turbulent or repressive areas (whether they grew up in these areas, or have traveled widely in them) (Morrison, Pico Iyer, Orhan Pamuk, Nadine Gorimer). The first group tends to talk about the literary crappiness of novels written specifically to draw attention to some cause, or to protest an outrage. They emphasize the importance of literature as an observant and non-judgmental work of art.

Banks:

A true novelist. . . has no thought of his or her audience. . . . Not when submitting oneself to the discipline and rigor and tradition of the history of the form, which require that one be at all times wholly honest and nonjudgmental and as intelligent as possible – that one be, as Henry James prescribed, a person ‘on whom nothing is lost.’

Prose:

The polemicist, or the theorist, or the strategist would have trouble with the stance that Chekhov identified as basic for the artist. That is, the notion that writers must admit they understand nothing of life, that nothing in this world makes sense, so all a writer can do is to try and describe it.

The second group, while often agreeing with the first, tends to focus more on the revolutionary potential of the written word, and on the absolute indignity and intolerability of censorship. Both groups essentially agree with each other: the job of writers is to mirror what is true, and nothing – no cause or party or regime or nation or event – that impedes this truth-telling can be tolerated. So that when Orhan Pamuk (whose essay was, in my opinion, one of the most interesting) writes about Turkey, he is writing what he sees in the society where he lives. Whether or not he intends to make an overtly political statement (and if his book is to be of any interest, hopefully, making a political statement would not be his purpose in writing it), his work might still be censored by those who don’t agree with or like the reality it reflects.

Pamuk:

Whatever the country, freedom of thought and expression are universal human rights. These freedoms, which modern people long for as much as bread and water, should never be limited by using nationalist sentiment, moral sensitivities, or – worst of all – business or military interests. If many nations outside the West suffer poverty in shame, it is not because they have freedom of expression but because they don’t. . . . Yes, we must be alert to those who denigrate immigrants and minorities for their religion, their ethnic roots, or the oppression that the governments of the countries they’ve left behind have visited on their own people.

But to respect the humanity and religious beliefs of minorities is not to suggest hat we should limit freedom of thought on their behalf. Respect for the rights of religious or ethnic minorities should never be an excuse to violate freedom of speech.

The only form of activism appropriate for writers (when they are acting in the capacity of “writer” rather than, say, that of “citizen”) is witnessing, and it’s pretty much impossible to write anything of merit without witnessing. On that, it seems all these contributors agree.

Gordimer:

The extremity of human experience does not make a writer.

Updike:

To be sure, as a citizen, one votes, attends meetings, subscribes to liberal pieties, pays or withholds taxes, and contributes to charities . . . But as a writer, for me to attempt to expand my artistic scope into all the areas of my human concern, to substitute nobility of purpose for accuracy of execution, would certainly be to forfeit whatever social usefulness I do have.

August 3, 2009

I’ve Been Watching: Away We Go

I can’t decide if I like Dave Eggers, or not. I love McSweeney’s Internet Tendency (well, sometimes), and I mostly love The Believer, but I do not generally like the stories published in the McSweeney’s Quarterly, nor am I interested in the books printed under the McSweeney’s imprint. At the same time, I appreciate the whole McSweeney’s publishing philosophy, and the ground they have broken for small presses and internet publishing. As to Eggers’ work itself, I have not read A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius, but have heard enough about it to have a predisposition to dislike it. I feel most people whose tastes I share and whose opinions I admire do not care for Eggers’ books.

As to Vindela Vida, I read Let the Northern Lights Erase Your Name, and I both liked it and didn’t. I thought it was original and well-written, and I loved the frigid, remote Lapland setting – both because it was descriptive of an area I’d never read anything about, and because it worked perfectly for the book’s subject matter. On the other hand, I disliked the protagonist. I couldn’t at all get a sense of who she was, and I felt she wasn’t honest or open. It’s weird to read a book written in the first person, wherein the protagonist’s attitude is ‘Sigh, I really don’t want to talk about this, but since you ask.’ Particularly, because I usually don’t feel this is an authorial choice; rather, it’s a persona a lot of cool young people my age have adopted, which I find extremely alienating in person, and which is now reflected in many of the characters dreamt up by the same people who currently freeze you if you try to talk to them at Brooklyn parties. I find people intimidating enough; I don’t need to be snubbed by my books. I started reading in the first place because I found characters far more relatable than people, but with the McSweeney’s crew, I often feel the books themselves are judging me.

Which brings me to Away We Go (directed by Sam Mendes, and co-written by Eggers and Vida). Burt (John Krasinski) and Verona (Maya Rudolph) are pregnant. Currently, they live in a shack of a house in Colorado, where they moved to be close to Burt’s parents. When they announce their pregnancy, however, Burt’s parents reveal that they are moving to Belgium. Thus, Burt and Verona are confronted with the whitest problem ever made into a two-hour movie: where in America would be best for two young people whose jobs are of a nature to enable them to make a living pretty much anywhere, and who have no limiting ties or hindrances, to settle down and raise a family? And so, the young couple hits the road, to visit old friends and audition cities.

The acting is far and away the best part of this movie. Rudolph and Krasinski are adorable, and every last supporting character does a fantastic job of portraying characters that are cartoonish but recognizable (particularly Allison Janney, as a braying, heavy drinking, inappropriate Mom, and Maggie Gyllenhaal as a drippingly condescending, New Age Earth mother). Everybody is a real sport about committing to dialogue that is frequently clunky or cliched. And – glory, glory, fabulousness! – the women all get to play interesting and hilarious character roles (albeit, as part of a never-ending parade of despicable or pathetically failed mothers).

The writing, on the other hand, ranges from ignorable to grating. There are twee details a-plenty (Verona and her sister climb into a model bathtub in a furniture showroom to cuddle each other and cry about their dead mom) and tortuously written monologues that go on and on, sounding like nothing anyone would ever say (an absolutely astoundingly stupid lecture involving pancake-syrup-as-metaphor-for-ties-that-bind, and Verona’s story of her family’s fruit tree, which made me feel like I was back in a ‘How to score that callback!’ monologue workshop).

But the biggest problem in Away We Go is that it has no problem at all…and doesn’t realize it. The movie would have been fine as a straight up smart comedy, but Eggers and Vida have twisted what is essentially a nothing dilemma (which city do we pick to have our baby in?) into an agonizing journey. But where’s the agony? Particularly because, in the end (SPOILER ALERT), the couple realizes they can simply live in Verona’s (deceased) parents’ gorgeous old mansion on lakefront property, which they already own!

We should all have such problems.

July 26, 2009

I’ve Been Reading: Of the Farm

Full disclosure: I have never read John Updike before, but I have always been pretty much bound and determined to dislike him. Having long heard all about how little he thinks of women, and how misogynist his writings usually are, I was predisposed to hate him. But since he’s John-freaking-Updike, he’s always been on my to-read list. So, I recently finally read Of the Farm. I figured it was good to start with, because it’s very short, and because DFW mentioned (in an essay about how awful and misogynist Updike is) that it’s one of the better of Updike’s works.

And what did I think of it? Frankly, I don’t know! I’ve simply always been so prejudiced against Updike that I don’t think I’ll ever be able to read him objectively. If Ian McEwan wrote this book, I might have liked it. I simply don’t know.

Of the Farm is about Joey Robinson visiting his aging mother on the family’s TK-acre farm in Olinger, PA. Joey brings his new wife, Peggy, who he divorced his previous wife, Joan, in order to marry, and her 11-year-old son, Richard. Naturally, Joey has a contentious relationship with his mother – particularly, she dislikes his wives. Now that he is divorced from Joan, his mother is all happy nostalgia for her and the two children of the previous marriage, which makes an already awkward visit even moreso. She (his mother) is quite sick, and has asked Joey to come and do the mowing on the farm she is no longer able to do. This farm is her baby; her husband, Joey’s father, never wanted the farm and he was not suited to work it. There’s a lot of accusation that Joey’s mother’s insistence on farm life killed the long-suffering family patriarch.

The family alternates between dancing stiffly around each other, and full out brawling, which frankly, I can’t relate to. I know that some families go at it in earnest, but it’s not the way I was raised. Forgive the absolute WASPishness of my saying I don’t understand people who can’t even keep their rage bottled up for a four-day visit – particularly when there’s no major catalyst to force things to a head. And after the four hundredth time somebody predicted death and dismemberment if the kid was permitted to drive the tractor. . . well, forgive me, but I expected to see the freaking kid drive the tractor at some point! Chekov’s gun, Updike. Chekov’s gun.

Also, I might be too much a product of the literary phase during which I was raised to appreciate Updike. His prose seems absolutely florid to me; his total seriousness embarrassing. I enjoyed the dialogue, but man, some of the descriptive passages:

. . . butterflies loped and bobbed above the flattened grass as the hands of a mute concubine might examine, flutteringly, the corpse of her giant lover.

Seriously?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 60 other followers