tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24099772160374780782024-03-13T22:10:24.500-04:00Kristin's Book BlogA blog about life and literatureUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger90125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2409977216037478078.post-72781909064076706542012-02-21T16:32:00.002-05:002012-02-21T16:46:16.915-05:00We Need to Talk About Kevin<span style="font-style: normal; ">It’s taken me quite a long time to write this review.<br /><br /><i>We Need to Talk About Kevin</i> is brutal and unforgiving. It’s terrifying. Disturbing. To the core. It will make people ask you if you are <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">ok</span>. And you will not be <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">ok</span>. Trust me.<br /><br />The novel is comprised of a series of letters that Eva – mother of Kevin – is writing to her (ex?) husband Franklin. Kevin was the perpetrator of a high school massacre and is now serving time in a detention facility. Eva is looking back over her son’s life, trying to figure out if she was to blame…what she could have done differently along the way. What was wrong with Kevin? Was he “wrong” from the start, or did something happen that made him the way that he was? <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Shriver</span>’s novel shocks over and over again…and even when it feels to be winding down, finally coming to “Thursday” there are still more shocks to come.<br /><br />It’s not often that a novel can really, really stir up emotions…particularly emotions that are completely contained, shall we say, within the action of the novel. This <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">isn</span>’t a case where I’m reading my own life – thank god! – into the action, seeing myself in the characters. This is sheer rage, sheer sorrow over what <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Shriver</span> puts to us. You have to have the stomach for this novel. And even after every twist and turn, I had to restrain myself from balling my eyes out at the ending. I did not see that coming, though I should have…it was hinted at but I chose to think, “no…it cannot happen.” It did. I’ll leave it at that.<br /><br />It’s rare – very rare – that…that what? So many things – that you meet a character that is so horrifying in a very human way. I know what I’m trying to say here, but it’s a difficult idea to form and verbalize. A story might be scary – even horrifying. A ghost story. Halloween, the Ring, the Shining, whatever. But a lot of what is horrifying <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">isn</span>’t real…on a human scale you know it’s going to hurt you. Michael Meyers might be a <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">sociopathic</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">psychokiller</span>… but the idea that you can’t kill him? It’s not real, and on a human level you know that.<br /><br />Kevin is the type of person you hope that you never have to meet in life. I’<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">ve</span> seen pieces of him in others before, but this full-on sociopath who is so bored with life that the only things that they find interesting are things that hurt other people. And they just don’t give a shit.<br /><br />In my mind, I’m comparing this to the villains in<i> The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo</i>…they were very real – their crimes were human. And they were sociopaths. But the horror is different than in We Need to Talk About Kevin. Where Dragon Tattoo’s villains too one dimensional? Is it that they were seeking out victims in a relatively random way? Kevin is targeted: he will tell you the thing that will make you want to kill yourself. He will do to you what will damage you most, and then let you live. Or, maybe, he’ll just kill you himself. He’s terrifying on a primal level: as a homo <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">sapien</span>, I think we have evolved to be horrified and repulsed to the gut by people like this…who don’t get that we are supposed to work together as a society, who just say fuck you to the social contract.<br /><br />But while it’s Kevin that I am scared of, it’s his father – Franklin – that I was angry at. Franklin is so completely in his world of Andie Griffith, Oh gee pop that sounds great - that he completely misses his son. He is not seeing Kevin, he is seeing his dream child. And anyone who dare suggest that the dream child isn't the dream child, there is something wrong with their assessment. I know people like this. I know people who have almost gotten people fired from their jobs because their kid is a hellion and they refuse to see it. Even when it's on video. I understand loving and being awed by your kid. What I do not understand is being so utterly blinded by it, or by your own weirdness that you don't see your child at all.</span><div><span style="font-style: normal; "><br /><br />Children don’t come with a manual. And the best advice is conflicting at best. Every child is different, and the trick of parenting seems to be figuring out your own kid – what they need, when, how, by whom. The trick is, though, that this <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">isn</span>’t something you simply light on when your child is 3 months old, and it serves you the rest of your life. It’s not that simple. This story of watching Eva struggle as a mother to find how to interact with and control her son is unsettling, and I found myself measuring Brendan's quirks and outbursts with Kevin's...this book will not allow you to escape the idea that you too may have raised a murderer. </span><div style="font-style: normal; "><span ><br /></span></div><div><span >As I mentioned earlier, this is definitely not for everyone...you really have to be able to stomach it. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11" style="font-style: normal; ">Shriver</span> is <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12" style="font-style: normal; ">cruel, and her cruelty will take a toll on you</span>. But I'll tell you, when I finished it I immediately went and bought some other Shriver novels, and they look about as bleak as <i>We Need to Talk About Kevin.</i></span></div><div style="font-style: normal; "><span ><br /><br /> </span><br /></div></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2409977216037478078.post-49045564436484482522012-01-17T13:04:00.000-05:002019-12-06T13:06:23.358-05:00The Mustache <span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span"><span class="Apple-style-span">I've been taking a lot of recommendations from The Millions these days. The description of Emmanuel Carrere's <i>The Mustache </i> <a href="http://www.themillions.com/2007/01/indelible-doubt-class-trip-mustache-by.html">in this article</a> was too much for me to resist. </span><span class="Apple-style-span"><br /></span><br /><span class="Apple-style-span">Imagine Rod Sterling's voice here. Meet ____ (we don't know his name). About to set out for a dinner party, he decides to shave off his mustache. In this ordinary act, something extraordinary occurs. When he walks out of the bathroom, he will be entering - The Twilight Zone.</span><span class="Apple-style-span"><br /></span><br /><span class="Apple-style-span">Ok, that was lame. But imagine you had a mustache for years. And you decide to get rid of it, just to see. But no one notices - not your wife, not your friends, not your coworkers. Your mustache, you thought, was such an obvious feature of your appearance that <i>someone</i> would comment on its disappearance...especially since some, like you wife, have never seen you without it. But no one notices. You begin to suspect they are all playing a trick on you, an elaborate joke. One night you ask your wife (named Agnes) why she hasn't said anything. And she informs you that you never had a mustache. !</span><br /><span class="Apple-style-span"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span">You call some friends, and they say you never had a mustache either. ! You produce some photos from a trip to Java you and Agnes took, <i>with your mustache</i>, and Agnes dismisses them. In the morning, the photos are gone, and she informs you that you never went to Java, with or without mustache. The friends you visited the night before - Agnes tells you that you not only spent the night at home but that she never heard of these friends. !</span><br /><span class="Apple-style-span"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span">Through all this, you find out that your father died the year before, but you don't remember...you thought he was alive and well. !</span><br /><span class="Apple-style-span"><br /></span><span class="Apple-style-span">So...what do you do? Are you insane? Is Agnes insane? Is Agnes trying to convince you that you are insane for some reason?</span><br /><span class="Apple-style-span"></span><br /><span class="Apple-style-span">___ runs away - hopping on a plane to Hong Kong, where he spends a few days riding a ferry back and forth and shaving over and over and over and over again. He moves on to Macao, and one night coming back to his hotel - there is Agnes, talking about going to the casino again, as if she had been along on the entire trip. He goes into the bathroom, and cuts off his face. There. All better.</span><br /><span class="Apple-style-span"><br /></span><br /><span class="Apple-style-span"></span><span class="Apple-style-span"></span><span class="Apple-style-span"></span><span class="Apple-style-span"><i>The Mustache </i>certainly isn't for everyone. I actually really, really liked it. Sometimes I apparently have trouble relating to people who think differently than I do, to the point where it seems there are two different realities. So the concept of <i>The Mustache</i> - that what we feel constitutes our life, our reality - could be very, very wrong is extremely creepy. What if reality as I perceive it is as it is for the unnamed narrator? Not that I actually think it is - I'm not <i>that </i>crazy (I don't think!) but it is eerie nonetheless. There are tracts of Sartre and <i>Nausea </i>here. </span></span><span class="Apple-style-span"><br /><span class="Apple-style-span"><i><br /></i></span></span></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2409977216037478078.post-50329526467384938032011-10-16T16:42:00.000-04:002011-10-17T16:44:05.800-04:00Comedy in a Minor KeyHow do you do dispose of a body you aren’t supposed to have in the first place?<br /><br />That is the central problem for Wim and Marie, an average young Dutch couple who agree to hide a Jewish man, Nico, during the Nazi occupation. And then he dies.<br /><br />Hans Keilson’s <i>Comedy in a Minor Key</i> is a slim, somewhat simple novel that easily shows the anxiety and issues arising from having someone in your house that you aren’t supposed to have in your house. At first they think that they can do it without anyone knowing, including family and the cleaning lady. But slowly – purposefully and accidently – a lot of people end up knowing. Through it, they come to learn that many of their own circle that they thought they knew well were also concealing secrets – which end up helping them in the end.<br /><br />What I liked most about this novel is the averageness of its characters. Wim and Marie don’t take Nico in out of some high purpose…there isn’t any moralizing about “the right thing to do,” or Schindler’s breakdown (“I could have done so much more!”). They do it because it has to be done, out of some vague sense of duty to their country. Someone asks them and they say, well sure. And Nico is so ordinary himself…a single perfume salesman, parents are dead, and no real relatives or importance. As much, I suppose, as any person could be said to be unimportant.<br /><br />That Nico died in such an ordinary way underscores this. There is a sense that he didn’t need to go into hiding just to die from an illness; he went into hiding so he could live - so the three of them could come out the other side. That comedic irony, as well as the simple way in which his disposal is bungled (a mere oversight of a monogram and a laundry tag on a pair of pajamas) is what makes this novel almost humorous. It has a slapstick, <i>Waiting for Godot</i> quality about it. One review I came across called the novel’s subject the “goofy, quotidian kindness that is one possible response to violence.” The everyday-ness of the novel, the, “yeah, sure we’ll do that” is what’s amazing. There aren’t many light-hearted novels on this subject.<br /><br /><i>Comedy in a Minor Key</i> is a small novel that doesn’t deal with any of the larger issues that I have come to expect in a story of occupied Europe. It’s about muddling through and figuring it out as you go along. But perhaps its publication in 1947 is a reason for that – it takes decades to truly process the totality of such a disaster. At this point I could start to go on angrily about our expectations of the 9/11 novel by extension, but I’ll save that for another post. It’s perhaps the ordinary stories that often come first, the stories that would be familiar to most people. The overarching epics that make us proud to be humans – in spite of what we humans sometimes do to one another – seem to come later.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2409977216037478078.post-65123153772939945082011-09-25T16:06:00.001-04:002017-08-05T23:45:31.731-04:00Enduring Love<p>Sometimes in my life, I get feelings about things. I don’t mean everyday coincidences, such as the fact that today I e-mailed a consultant about grass (my life is so exciting, I know), and it turns out he was on the job site at that moment looking at the grass. That’s a coincidence.</p><p>By feelings, I mean connections between people, often before they are aware of it themselves. I often am able to pick up when a person likes someone else…not obvious flirtations, but those secret things we don’t always like to admit. The way they throw a snowball, or the slight, so easy to miss twinkle in their eye at the mention of the person’s name.</p><p>Once, I don’t remember the situation, but I shared a very personal story with a friend of mine. There was some subtle <em>something</em> in the way she reacted to the story, and I thought, I think she (yes she) is in love with me. Months later…maybe four or five months later, she tells me that she is in love with me. Here was the rest of the conversation:</p><p>“I know.”<br>“You know?”<br>“I’ve known since November.”<br>“But I didn’t realize it until March.”<br>“I’ve known since November.”</p><p>I usually try to keep these feelings at arms lengths, especially when there is a desire for them to be correct. So I try to ignore them, and let things go where they go. And also because every now and then I seem to be off.</p><p>In Ian McEwan’s <em>Enduring Love</em>, Jed Parry gets it very, very wrong.</p><p>I loved the first few paragraphs, setting up the story:</p><blockquote><p>The beginning is simple to mark. We were in sunlight under a turkey oak, partly protected from a strong, gusty wind. I was kneeling on the grass with a corkscrew in my hand, and Clarissa was passing me the bottle – a 1987 Daumas Gassac. This was the moment, this was the pinprick on the time map: I was stretching out my hand, and as the cool neck and the black foil touched my palm, we heard a man’s shout. We turned to look across the field and saw the danger. Next thing, I was running toward it. The transformation was absolute: I don’t recall dropping the corkscrew, or getting to my feet, or making a decision, or hearing the caution Clarissa called after me. What idiocy, to be racing into this story and its labyrinths, sprinting away from our happiness among the fresh spring grasses by the oak. There was a shout again, and a child’s cry, enfeebled by the wind that roared in the tall trees along the hedgerows. I ran faster. And there, suddenly, from different points around the field, four other men were converging on the scene, running like me.</p><p>…I’m holding back, delaying the information. I’m lingering in the prior moment because it was a time when other outcomes were still possible; the convergence of six figures in a flat green space has a comforting geometry from the buzzard’s perspective, the knowable, limited plane of the snooker table. The initial conditions, the force and the direction of the force, define all the consequent pathways, all the angles of collision and return, and the glow of the overhead light bathes the field, the baize and all its moving bodies, in reassuring clarity. I think that while we were still converging, before we made contact, we were in a state of mathematical grace. I linger on our dispositions, the relative distances and the compass point- because as far as these occurrences were concerned, this was the last time I understood anything clearly at all.</p><p>What were we running toward? I don’t think any of us would ever know fully…it was an enormous balloon filled with helium, that elemental gas forged from hydrogen in the nuclear furnace of the stars, first step along the way in the generation of multiplicity and variety of matter in the universe, including our selves and our thoughts.<br><br>We were running toward a catastrophe, which itself was a kind of furnace in whose heat identities and fates would buckle into new shapes. </p></blockquote><br><p>One of the men running was Jed Parry. Our narrator, Joe Rose, has an odd encounter with him when one of the people trying to hold down the balloon is lifted up and eventually falls to his death. Jed asks Joe to pray with him there over the body. Joe refuses, disgusted at this reaction and leaves. In the middle of the night, Joe receives a phone call from Jed: he knows that Joe is in love with him, and he just wanted to call and let him know that he was in love too. So it begins.</p><p>Jed follows him – staking out his apartment, interpreting the movement of curtains for signals from Joe. And Joe’s wife Clarissa misses all of this. Jed hides when he sees her coming, and his handwriting is close enough to Joe’s that Clarissa thinks Joe is making it all up. Until he tries to kill them.</p><p>I thought the book got off track when Joe goes to find Jean (widow of the man who fell), and she asks him to find the girl that must have been in the car with her husband. She believes he must have been having an affair with whoever left the scarf behind. This plot line was then seemingly forgotten about to return to the original plot – so wholly forgotten that I had to go back and make sure I didn’t skip a chapter. It is introduced again at the very end for what seemed like no purpose. After thinking about it, the purpose obviously was to give a non-psychotic twist on the case of getting it wrong. Jean believes – based on evidence she interprets – that he husband was having an affair. In actuality, he had picked up an illicit hitchhiking couple who flee the scene when it takes its deadly turn.</p><p>In the end, I don’t think that I particularly cared for <em>Enduring Love</em>. I think I really enjoyed the Jed Parry/Joe Rose story…maybe “enjoyed” isn’t the word. I was freaked out, kept interested. But the other portions of it seemed superfluous. I thought for certain that when Rose looked into the mysterious scarf left in the car, he would find another reason to fear Parry. Instead, he found what amounted to a strange and unnecessary feel good ending – or at least feel good in context. The end, generally, all neatly tied up, was really just feel good in context. And I suppose that that is where my disappointment lies. Not because I didn’t want it to end well for Joe and Clarissa, or anyone else, but it seemed both rushed and dragged out at the same time. I found myself skimming through conversations on Keats to find out what Parry was going to do next.</p><p>So, something like <a href="http://kristinsbookblog.blogspot.com/2011/09/mustache.html"><em>The Mustache</em> </a>is happening here with my reaction to the book. It was, as a whole, just ho-hum...the ending like a deflating balloon (pun intended). The ideas that the novel presented and explored, however, were interesting and disturbing. McEwan writes, “No one could agree on anything. We lived in a mist of half-shared, unreliable perception, and our sense data came warped by a prism of desire and belief, which tilted our memories too. We saw and remembered in our own favor, and we persuaded ourselves along the way….believing is seeing.” How much do we see about the world, and our relationships, simply because we believe it? How much of the stuff we see as symbolic, or “meaning something” is just coincidence? What’s disturbing here is to see those pattern-seeking tendencies we have as humans blown up into something deadly. And where is the line between generally reading evidence and drawing a wrong conclusion, and just being certifiable? Probably somewhere around the time you start following someone around. Creepy.</p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2409977216037478078.post-30068823543128141462011-09-01T21:40:00.002-04:002011-09-09T00:10:40.259-04:00Summer 2011 Soundtrack<a name="_MailAutoSig" rel="nofollow"><span style="font-family:georgia;">It's</span></a><span style="font-family:georgia;"> been a crazy summer. Here are the lyrics:<br /><br />--Stop me if you think that you've heard this one before<br /><br />--Check this hand cause I'm marvelous<br /><br />--I don’t know what you mean to me, but I want to turn you on, turn you up, figure you out, I want to take you on<br /><br />--You’re standing in the places…that bring to mind traces of a girl that I knew somewhere/I just can’t put my finger on what it is that says to me watch out, don’t believe her…And if your love was not a game, I’d only have myself to blame…<br /><br />--Is it my turn to wish you were lying here...<br /><br />--I see your lips moving but I don't hear nothing/Everybody talking like they really wanna know about us<br /><br />--Do you feel what I feel? Can we make it so that’s part of the deal?<br /><br />--What if you could smile? What if I could make your heart ignite just for a while?<br /><br />--You might think that I’m crazy but you know I’m just your type…if I said my heart was beating loud...<br /><br />--Give me everything tonight, for all we know we might not get tomorrow <em>(Is it weird that I think this song is sooo incredibly sad?)</em><br /><br />--I never dreamed that I'd meet somebody like you...<br /><br />--There ain’t no reason you and me should be alone tonight/I need a man who thinks it’s right when it’s so wrong…<br /><br />--And now I know just why she keeps me hanging around/she needs someone to walk on, so her feet don’t touch the ground/but I love her…<br /><br />--He’s a wolf in disguise, but I can’t stop staring in those evil eyes<br /><br />--You’re so hypnotizing/could you be the devil/could you be an angel? You’re not like the others…<br /><br />--Can’t believe you’re taking my heart to pieces<br /><br />--At night you hang about the house and weep your heart out, and cry your eyes out, and wrack your brain…you sit and wonder how anyone as wonderful as he could cause you such misery and pain<br /><br />--Child of the wilderness, born into emptiness, learn to be lonely…learn to find your way in darkness<br /><br />--One begins to read between the pages of a look...I saw you coming back to me.<br /><br />--In this world, if you read the papers, you know everybody’s fighting with each other…so if someone comes along who’ll give you some love and affection, I say get it while you can<br /></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2409977216037478078.post-35050767011145278642011-08-15T12:51:00.001-04:002011-09-01T14:22:18.677-04:00Naive.SuperIt’s funny how a casual mention of a novel in an article can lead one to a very creepy reading experience.
<br />
<br />I saw <a href="http://www.blogger.com/”">this article </a>on The Millions two weeks ago, which notes Erlend Loe’s <i>Naïve.Super</i>. After noticing the shipping time on amazon, I marched myself to the library and filled out the interlibrary loan request. Book came on Thursday, I started to read it yesterday and finished it this morning.
<br />
<br />My first impression of the novel – as I was reading it walking through the library parking lot – was that it would be cute; right up my alley. As I started to read it seriously, though, it began to feel a bit derivative – a little too much like a combination of Wittgenstein’s Mistress (in structure), and a hero from the Jonathan Safran Foer/Jonthan Letham/Mark Haddon mold. Though that really isn’t fair, since <i>Naïve.Super</i> was published in 1996, and the quirky, neurotic and/or autistic characters were all created (or published) in the decade after. So maybe <i>they</i> are the derivative work. Don’t know. I just feel like I’ve been encountering this voice quite a lot.
<br />
<br />But then on Sunday came the moment where I had to put the book down. This feeling had been slowly creeping up on me, but I didn’t catch it – identify it – until this moment:
<br />
<br />
<br /><blockquote>TV is a good thing. I ought to watch TV more often. I get pleasantly diverted. I can’t quite tell whether the thoughts I’m having are my own or if they’re coming from the TV. Animal programmes are the best. David Attenborough explaining that nature is intricate and that it all fits together. Wasps that navigate according to the sun. they know what they’re doing, the wasps. They know a lot better than I do.</blockquote>OMG this person is just like me.
<br />
<br />Yes Yes Yes on David Attenborough. Does anyone else do this – watch nature documentaries for perspective – to feel that everything is just part of the grand parade of life? Or is it just me and this unnamed character? Is that where the feeling of derivation came from – not from Foer or Lethem or Haddon, but from my own head? I think, really, it’s a combination. Still. FREAKY.
<br />
<br />
<br />This character is having something of a quarter life crisis. He quits college and moves into his brother’s apartment while his brother is in New York. He’s going somewhat crazy, and finds comfort in throwing a ball against a wall, playing with a hammer-and-peg set, and reading about the universe. I do that too – read about the universe that is – when I’m feeling out of sorts. Nothing, really, is more comforting for me than the stars and string theory. Have you seen the Google Sky Map app? These last few months I’ve been looking at it a lot, just moving my phone around and seeing what I’m surrounded by whether I can see them or not. Does this sound strange? Maybe. But you should try it sometime.
<br />
<br />This is that feeling that was creeping up on me. I have never encountered myself in a novel as much as I have here. And that’s really, really freaky.
<br />
<br /><strong>II. </strong>
<br />
<br />
<br /><blockquote><i>“I think he’s got problems with time himself, but that he still hasn’t found out. One day he’ll be the one who hits the wall.”</i></blockquote>Things have been weird for me the last few months, though they are working themselves out. I’ve learned a lot about myself, and a lot about how I deal with other people, and how my own limits and suspicions both protect me and hinder me.
<br />
<br />I think quite a lot. I have very few waking moments during which I’m not thinking about anything; and usually those few moments of “quiet” are interrupted by someone asking, “what are you thinking about?” Perhaps I’m most deep in thought when I look like I’m not thinking. And vice versa. Sometimes this is a problem – when I need that quiet and am unable to get it within my own brain, or when the constant din goes off the rails and the only respite is to listen to AM radio from Quebec – the more static the better. Perhaps that makes me sound crazy.
<br />
<br />It’s taken me most of my life to understand that not everyone thinks as much – or about the same things – as I do. That not everyone is as concerned about what the universe is expanding into, or if hell is a state of mind can you think yourself out of it? And what is color and does it exist objectively? (I don’t believe that it does – I’m a color subjectivist...there are others out there with me on this one. People smarter than me and you.) When I talk about these things which genuinely interest me and sometimes keep me awake at night people mostly just stare at me. Or tell me I think too much.
<br />
<br />Well, damn it (here’s where my frustration of the last three months comes out…) maybe I think just the right amount. I should start telling people, “Maybe you don’t think enough.” Maybe the world would grind to a screeching halt if it were filled with people who think as much as I do, but most people could probably use a little more sincere reflection on themselves and the universe and their place in it.
<br />
<br />So in this little crazy tornado, I came to realize that thinking too much isn’t necessarily a problem. It can be, but it isn’t necessarily. I’m not an extrovert. I never will be, and it’s silly of me to try to pretend that I am or could be - or even that I understand extroverts. I don’t. I’ve given up. But by giving up on trying to be what I’m not, I’ve accepted (at least a little bit) what I am. My personality certainly has its downsides, but it also has its upsides. And I wouldn’t give one inch of my ocean of contemplation for one more extra of extroversion. Somehow <i>Naïve.Super</i> brought that home.
<br />
<br />A parting thought from Loe’s too-familiar-for-comfort novel:
<br />
<br />“There is no time. There is a life and a death. There are people and animals. Our thoughts exist. And the world. The universe, too. But there is no time. You might as well take it easy. Do you feel better now? I feel better. This is going to work out. Have a nice day.”
<br />
<br />:-)
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2409977216037478078.post-56054896519994691092011-08-01T16:51:00.002-04:002011-08-01T16:59:07.008-04:00Anagrams"Life is sad. Here is someone."<br /><br /><br />I've said before that things are weird. I don't know how else to describe my life right now. Just weird. (Getting better, though, a bit.) I'm always particular about what books I read when, in what mood, but when things are like they are now, that selectivity is heightened. I cannot read just any book, and I will flit between ten or more books until I find the one that feels just right. For that reason, in times like this, I find myself going back to my happy places: Kerouac, Ondaatje, <i>The Virgin Suicides</i>,<i>The Great Gatsby</i>. <i>The English Patient</i> has been calling to me like a siren in the last few months, but I have had to resist the temptation. I know what happens when I read that book...despite what some may believe, sometimes I really do know what's best for myself. I'm not <i>always</i> into self-sabotage.<br /><br /><i>Anagrams</i> was a test for me. I would pick it up, read a few pages, and put it back: "Not now." A few days later, I would pick it up again and read a few more pages, and put it back. "Not now." Well why not now, damn it? Because it's too upbeat? I want to say, yes, too upbeat, but to call this book upbeat is, well, to be Kristin I suppose. Turns out, I needed this book.<br /><br /><br />I'll admit, at first I thought I got this book. I became slightly more confused with each chapter…ok, so Benna teaches geriatric aerobics, AND teaches art history at a community college, AND is a nightclub singer. And Gerard teaches aerobics to kids AND is a nightclub singer AND in a rock opera version of <i>Dido and Aeneas</i>...hard economic times, you know? (FYI...Dido and Aeneas are EVERYWHERE for me right now.) It all, sort of, made sense in my mind...first Gerard must have been Benna's student, married with a daughter, then gotten divorced and started up with Benna, and eventually moved into her apartment house. Then they broke it off, but still drink near beer together every morning. But then I get to the second part, and Benna says that her friend Eleanor is imaginary. Wait – what? And where did this daughter – who is also imaginary – come from? At first I thought this was one of Benna's witticisms, because it seemed the type of quip she would make. But I kept going, and it was clear she was serious. So, I had to look it up. Duh! Sometimes I read into things too much ("I'm cool? What does that mean?") and sometimes I accept too much at face value. There must be a middle ground somewhere that I just cannot seem to find.<br /><br />So here's what's really going on: Benna teaches poetry at a community college. She makes friends with Gerard. She has an affair with one of her students. She has an imaginary friend Eleanor, and an imaginary daughter. This is all learned in the second half of the book. The first half of the book is a series of short stories, really, about people named Benna and Gerard and Eleanor, etc. in parallel lives, essentially. It's derivative of reality, or nonreality since Eleanor is imaginary anyway.<br /><br />The writing was <i>amazing. </i>Yes, this story is desperately bleak. Benna is so lonely and isolated that she makes up imaginary children. But it's funny as hell. I get this humor. I could have written this. Well, not really, but three quarters of it is stuff that would come out of my own mouth. Even in the depths of despair, sometimes, I cannot help but be sarcastically funny. Here are some examples that I underlined. (I underlined <i>a lot</i> in <i>Anagrams</i>.)<br /><br /><br /><ul><br /><li>"Yes, well," said Gerard, attempting something lighthearted. "I guess that's why they call it <i>work</i>. I guess that's why they don't call it <i>table tennis</i>."</li><br /><br /><br /><li>Eleanor and I around this time founded The Quit-Calling-Me-Shirley School of Comedy. It entailed the two of us meeting downtown for drinks and making despairing pronouncements about life and love which always began, "But surely…" It entailed what Eleanor called, "The Great White Whine": whiney white people getting together over white wine and whining.</li><br /><br /><br /><li>"I think a few well-considered and prominently displayed uncertainties are always in order."</li><br /><br /><br /><li>"...Remember: It's important not to be afraid of looking like an idiot." This was my motto in life.</li><br /><br /><br /><li>Aeneas shouldered his guitar and riffed and whined after Dido throughout the entire show: "Don't you see why I have to go to Europe?/I must ignore the sentiment you stir up." Actually it was awful. But nonetheless I sniffled at her suicide, and when she sang at Aeneas, "Just go then! Go if you must! My heart will surely turn to dust," and Aeneas indeed left, I sat in my seat, thinking "You ass, Aeneas, you don't have to be so literal."</li><br /><br /><br /><li>Things, however, rarely happened the way you understood them. Mostly they just sort of drove up alongside what you thought was the case and then moved randomly down some other way.</li><br /><br /><br /><li>No idiocy was too undignified for me.</li><br /><br /><br /><li>I didn't want my life to show.</li><br /><br /><br /><li>He also has a cold, and has pulled the hood of his sweat shirt up over his head and tied it. "You look like the Little League version of The Seventh Seal"</li><br /><br /><br /><li>...feel my heart fluttering. It's a Tennessee Williams heart. A bad Tennessee Williams heart. I don't know what to say. The music urges love on you like food.</li><br /><br /><br /><li>"I've never put much store by honesty. I mean, how can you trust a word whose first letter you don't even pronounce?"</li><br /><br /><br /><li>It is as if our separate pasts were greeting each other, as if we were saying, This is how I have been with other people, this is how I would love you. If I loved you. Everything always seemed to boil down to boil down to Rodgers and Hammerstein. Off you would go in the mist of day and all that.</li><br /><br /><br /><li>You have a choice," she told her class. "The whorish emptiness of lies or the straight-laced horrors of truth."</li><br /><br /><br /><li>"You made her up? You made up an <i>imaginary</i> daughter?"<br />"Of course not," I say. "What, you think I'm an idiot? I made up a <i>real</i> daughter...I don't go around making up <i>imaginary</i> daughters...That would be too abstract. Even for me."</li></ul><br /><br />Shawn has been showing more of an interest in what I'm reading; I know why he's doing it and I really appreciate it. And he's asking me about this book that I will not put down, and why it's called <i>Anagrams</i>, and what it's about. As I'm trying to describe it, and how it's a bunch of stories about the same people, but not the same people, etc., and he says, "like <i>Mulholland Drive</i>?" YES. THANK YOU. EXACTLY LIKE MULHOLLAND DRIVE. Except funnier. But the basic idea of doppelgangers living tangential lives is the same.<br /><br />So, why did I need this book? I can't explain it. I love Benna. I love Gerard. I love Eleanor. I want a friend like Eleanor, who would yell out of cars at joggers, "Hey, go home and read <i>Middlemarch</i>." In college I had a friend who would have done something like that, but it wouldn't have been about <i>Middlemarch</i>. No, seriously, I need someone in my life who will yet at random people at George Eliot. Who will know who George Eliot is to begin with. That is why I needed this book. Thank you, Lorrie Moore. </li><br /><ul></ul>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2409977216037478078.post-52435153963352532662011-08-01T14:44:00.001-04:002011-08-01T14:44:58.754-04:00A conversation on The Great Gatsby<div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:verdana, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12pt"><div style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; BACKGROUND: white; RIGHT: auto" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: black; RIGHT: auto; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'"><VAR id=yui-ie-cursor></VAR>SHAWN: what is the Great Gatsby was about?<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p></SPAN></div> <div style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: black; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'">KRISTIN: A guy named Gatsby, but that wasn't really his name.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><o:p></o:p></SPAN></div> <div style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: black; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'">SHAWN: What happened to him? <o:p></o:p></SPAN></div> <div style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: black; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'">KRISTIN: He died.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><o:p></o:p></SPAN></div> <div style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: black; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'">SHAWN: How did he die?<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><o:p></o:p></SPAN></div> <div style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: black; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'">KRISTIN: He got shot.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><o:p></o:p></SPAN></div> <div style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: black; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'">SHAWN: Who shot him?<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><o:p></o:p></SPAN></div> <div style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: black; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'">KRISTIN: His mistress's husband's mistress's husband.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>He thought Gatsby was having an affair with his wife; but it was Gatsby's mistress's husband that was having the affair with his wife.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></div> <div style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; BACKGROUND: white" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri','sans-serif'; COLOR: black; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-bidi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'">SHAWN: That's complicated.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><o:p></o:p></SPAN></div> <div style="RIGHT: auto"></div></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2409977216037478078.post-34944828382482532022011-07-15T21:49:00.005-04:002011-07-16T07:29:28.991-04:00Poetry FridayI've been thinking about Dido and Aeneas today, so here's some lyrics from Purcell's Dido's Lament.<br /><br /><u>When I am Laid In Earth</u><br /><br />When I am laid, am laid in earth, <br />may my wrongs create <br />No trouble, no trouble in, in thy breast. <br />Remember me, remember me, but ah! <br />Forget my fate.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2409977216037478078.post-63369561823653643362011-07-08T21:38:00.006-04:002018-08-15T21:59:34.512-04:00Still LifeMaybe two months ago, I saw the film <i>Brief Encounter</i>. I was devastated. But i've been feeling devastated a lot lately. Things are weird. But <i>Brief Encounter</i>...I haven't been able to get away from it. Last week, I think it was, I couldn't take it anymore and bought the Noel Coward play it was based on - <i>Still Life</i>. It arrived today and I couldn't not just sit down and read it. Which I did immediately, ignoring everyone. <br />
<br />
This is a play of restraint. Alec and Laura meet when she gets something in her eye at the train station and he (a doctor) helps her get it out. One accidental meeting, and then another. And before long they are in love. But they're both married with children. (In the movie Laura says, "I was happily married until I met you" or something like that.). In the end, he and Laura agree it's best if Alec moves with his family to a new job in Africa. At their last meeting, a silly gossip friend of Laura's shows up, and Alec and Laura can only shake hands.<br />
<br />
There were many parts that got me...one in particular that is so personal right now I won't quote it just so I can keep it to myself. But here is one that I'm willing to share:<br />
<br />
ALEC: ...Please know that you'll be with me for ages and ages yet - far away into the future. Time will wear down the agony of not seeing you, bit by bit the pain will go-but the loving you and the memory of you won't ever go- please know that...I love you with all my heart and soul.<br />
<br />
LAURA: I want to die - if only I could die.<br />
<br />
ALEC: If you died you'd forget me - I want to be remembered.<br />
<br />
LAURA: Yes, I know.<br />
<br />
This play is a comfort to me right now- there's so much going on. I will carry this around with me for awhile...physically and emotionally.<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2409977216037478078.post-29091517596804137502011-07-04T12:48:00.002-04:002011-07-04T15:57:09.972-04:00Poetry FridayA long time ago, I was doing a series called "Poetry Friday." I've been thinking about starting it up again. While going through my blog files and drafts and things, I came across the following post I never published from 2008. I've been thinking about this poem lately, so I figure what the heck - I'll post it now. Without further ado, the reinstitution of Poetry Friday...on a Monday.<br /><br /><br /><br />I know I said that I wouldn't often post my own poems (which I don't write anymore), but today I am going to again. I happened to catch "The Universe: Parallel Worlds" or whatever it was called on the History Channel on Tuesday night. I wish I understood physics/astrophysics/ cosmology. But what they were talking about reminded me of a poem I wrote 8 years ago. The basic premise is here described by Max Tegmark in a 2003 article for Scientific American:<br /><br /><br /><blockquote>"Is there a copy of you reading this article? A person who is not you but who<br />lives on a planet called Earth, with misty mountains, fertile fields and<br />sprawling cities, in a solar system with eight other planets? The life of this<br />person has been identical to yours in every respect. But perhaps he or she now<br />decides to put down this article without finishing it, while you read on.<br /><br /><br /><p>"The idea of such an alter ego seems strange and implausible, but it looks as if we will just have to live with it, because it is supported by astronomical observations. The simplest and most popular cosmological model today predicts that you have a twin in a galaxy about 10 to the 1028 meters from here. This distance is so large that it is beyond astronomical, but that does not make your doppelgänger any less real. The estimate is derived from elementary probability and does not even assume speculative modern physics, merely that space is infinite (or at least sufficiently large) in size and almost uniformly filled with matter, as observations indicate. In infinite space, even the most unlikely events must take place somewhere. There are infinitely many other inhabited planets, including not just one but infinitely many that have people with the same appearance, name and memories as you, who play out every possible permutation of your life choices."</p></blockquote><br />Here's the poem:<br /><br /><b><u><i>Infinite Amount of Chances</i></u></b><u><i></i></u><i></i><br />"If you accept that the universe is infinite, then that means there's an infitite amount of chances for things to happen...if there's an infinite amount of chances for something to happen, then eventually it will happen - no matter how small the likelihood." - Alex Garland<br /><br />Am I with you now?<br />Can you feel me kiss you goodnight?<br />Sleepwalking I stumble into your bedroom<br /><br />Infinately we are together - you and I<br />In the darkness of every star's a sun with planets<br />Makes you feel small<br /><br />Out there you are holding my hand thru periodic sadnesses<br />Somewhere at sometime you were or will be allowed to love me -<br />I will be allowed to love you<br /><br />Infinity is a button on my calculator<br />And tonight I am lost and alone<br />Knowing one day you will find me<br />No matter how small the likelihood<br /><br /><br /><p></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2409977216037478078.post-23959405323733460392011-07-03T15:29:00.002-04:002019-12-09T09:38:02.770-05:00Professor Unrat<div>
Lately, I seem to be knee deep in German or German-related books. Bust be something in the German literary psyche that's calling to me lately. Don't know what else it could be. So, for that unknown reason, I recently lighted on Heinrich Mann's 1905 <em>Professor Unrat</em>, made famous by Marlene Dietrich's breakout performance in the film adaptation, <em>The Blue Angel</em>.<br />
<br />
Unrat, which translates into something close to "garbage" - my version translated it as "mud" - is a tyrannical professor, vilified by his students and former students who insist on tormenting him constantly. He hates - HATES!!!! - being called by his nickname, and will seek out everyone that calls him that and mete out whatever punishment he can. They shout at him in the street, mocking him everywhere.<br />
<br />
His arch nemesis is a student named Lohmann, who actually makes a point never to call him "mud" - he's above it somehow. One day, Lohmann turns in his notebook after an exam and Unrat notices a poem tin it addressed to an actress, Rosa Frohlich. Boys in the school are not supposed to be dilly dallying at theaters, and so Unrat sets out to catch Lohmann and his two accomplices. Unrat searches the town for where this infamous Rosa may be, and he eventually finds her at the Blue Angel. His goal is simple: bring down Lohmann by catching him in after-hours dalliances with a woman of low-repute. But that's not what happens. Rosa, instead, catches Unrat.<br />
<br />
The students know what's up, and because of it Unrat completely loses control. He eventually is forced to leave his post and uses all his money catering to Rosa. Lohmann resurfaces, Unrat tries to kill him and really just ends up stealing his wallet. As he runs down the street, he is like always tormented with insults. Unrat's unwavering righteousness - his need to ruin those who have mocked him - is excellently portrayed. A very powerful story.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Though I <em><u>love</u></em> <em>The Blue Angel</em> (which is why I cannot help posting the clip at the bottom - her expressions in the German version are much better than the English), the motivation behind Unrat is completely different between film and novel. Though at first he really is interested and flattered by Rosa (called Lola Lola in the film), in the novel his undoing is his absolute desire to ruin <em>everyone </em>and he is able to do so via his relations with Rosa. In the film, it's his devotion to Rosa/Lola herself that is his undoing without mention of his overriding obession. That just gets him into her dressing room. Both work and both knock your socks off, but for different reasons.</div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
With that, here you go:<br />
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="344" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/8gAo2aR_tUw" width="459"></iframe><br /></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2409977216037478078.post-69845689498956305462011-05-31T16:43:00.001-04:002011-05-31T16:43:46.562-04:00Wittgenstein's Mistress<div style="font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt"><DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV> <P style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'serif'; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">I'll be honest. This abandonment of the reading desert is not without its catalysts. By far not. It's been spurred by a whirlwind in my head, the kind that makes me want to shut myself off from the rest of the world and listen to AM stations out of Quebec with a lot of static. It's been part injuries and illnesses and potential illnesses – my own and others –overbooking myself, and living with a toddler who is intent on driving me absolutely bonkers for an hour and a half about eating breakfast (or, really, pretending to eat breakfast…and dinner, and every other time I try to feed him), and then asking for a bear hug and a kiss. Maybe also that for a month or two, my part of the world suddenly assumed Seattle's climate, without the perks of a really great scene and coffee shops on every block, and now suddenly it's Louisiana. <SPAN> </SPAN>It's part other stuff too. <BR><BR></SPAN></P> <P style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'serif'; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">Usually I feel this way in the fall and early winter even numbered years, but for some reason here I am in spring of an odd numbered year. Which is disorienting in itself. I always look to books for bearings, but strangely, the books I look for are fractured themselves. Now is not the time for funny, or upbeat. (Do I ever do upbeat, though?) <BR><BR></SPAN></P> <P style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'serif'; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">I tried to read <EM>Wittgenstein's Mistress</EM> last year (of course, in the fall/early winter of an even numbered year), but it didn't work for me at the time. Sometimes you have these things. So I've been flitting from one book to the next lately (literally with piles stacked next to my bed of maybe 15 books), but this time <EM>WM</EM> stuck. It's fractured, too, and feels like a cocoon. Which is what I really need right now. <BR><BR></SPAN></P> <P style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'serif'; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">Kate, the narrator, contends that she is the last person alive – or at least as far as she can tell. We have to take her at her word for it, because she's all we've got.<SPAN> </SPAN>Every review I read for the novel said we are "lead to believe" that Kate was the last person, leaving me to expect some clues in the end that she really was just insane.<SPAN> </SPAN>Yes, some devastating things happened to Kate (the death of her child, etc.) and some of these reviews suggested that with that devastation, Kate lost it and therefore we cannot take her word for the state of the world.<SPAN> </SPAN>It's possible, of course, but there isn't anything particular hinting one way or the other.<SPAN> </SPAN>We can take her at her word, or not.</SPAN></P> <P style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'serif'; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"> </SPAN></P> <P style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'serif'; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><EM>WM</EM> doesn't have a plot.<SPAN> </SPAN>The idea that she's the last person alive is just the starting point for Kate's thoughts.<SPAN> </SPAN>This isn't a story about she is became the last person alive, or how she has dealt with being the last person alive.<SPAN> </SPAN>It's Kate, alone, in a house on the beach perhaps a decade or more after she stopped looking for other people, typing her disjointed thoughts, which are not about her life but about philosophy, art, music and the Trojan War.<SPAN> </SPAN>This may seem odd, but I thought it was perfectly normal.<SPAN> </SPAN>When you're disjointed – as one might be if one were the last person alive, or, of course, if one is crazy enough to think one were the last person alive when really one isn't – these are the types of things that may come up.<SPAN> </SPAN>Sometimes, in such situations, it's much, much easier – and more soothing, more calming – to think of facts, to think of things completely unrelated to anything, independent of you, the feeler, instead of focusing on what is happening in that moment that has made one feel disjointed.<SPAN> Here,</SPAN> Markson perfectly captures what happens to our brains when we – ok, I – feel isolated and alone. It's perfect pitch.</SPAN></P> <P style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'serif'; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"> </SPAN></P> <P style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'serif'; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">What's most amazing about <EM>WM</EM> is that it works even if you don't know anything about Wittgenstein (though it works much better if you do).<SPAN> </SPAN>Though I read The Odyssey, I haven't read The Iliad, or many of the other ancient Greek works that are referenced here – that would have heightened my understanding, but it worked even without it.<SPAN> </SPAN>This novel made me want to put away Arabian Nights and get my Bulfinch's Mythology out again.<SPAN> </SPAN></SPAN></P> <P style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'serif'; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"> </SPAN></P> <P style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'serif'; FONT-SIZE: 11pt">I loved this book.<SPAN> </SPAN>It was everything I expected it to be, which is often not the case.<SPAN> I'm sure that when once again I get to another fall/winter of an even numbered year, I will pick it up to find my bearings in the color of the cat Kate saw at the <SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><FONT face=Garamond>Coliseum. </FONT></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></P> <P style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'serif'; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><SPAN><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><FONT face=Garamond></FONT></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN> </P> <P style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'serif'; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><SPAN><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><FONT face=Garamond></FONT></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN> </P> <P style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt" class=MsoNormal><SPAN style="FONT-FAMILY: 'serif'; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><SPAN><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%; FONT-SIZE: 11pt"><FONT face=Garamond></FONT></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN> </P></DIV></DIV></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2409977216037478078.post-51553519601375002062011-05-06T15:48:00.004-04:002011-05-13T21:31:10.117-04:00The Great GatsbyThere are some books that it’s difficult to write about, not for lack of things to actually say about it, but because writing about it feels like exposing the innermost reaches of one’s core. There are a handful of books that make me feel this way, The Great Gatsby being one of them. I’m not sure that there is a book that I feel more connected to – that I feel is more personal to me and my own story; only The English Patient comes close. The Great Gatsby feels like a road map of my own heart – and heartache. It’s hard to know where to begin in this review, because it is so intertwined with my life, I don’t know how to tell the story of The Great Gatsby without telling my own. This isn’t a “review” of the novel. This is my story of The Great Gatsby.<br /><br />I have to take a big breath just to begin.<br /><br />Gatsby came to me in 10th grade Honors English. I was 15. A romantic 15. I had already been in love twice. The third time came when I was 15…it had probably already arrived by the time we got to Fitzgerald (though #3 was really just trying to recapture #1). Perhaps you may think I’m being melodramatic, to say that three (out of four!) of the times I have been in love with someone occurred by the time I was 15, but looking back even now, as I approach 30, it’s true. There were two other times – at 18 and at 21 – when I thought I was in love, but in hindsight I know that I wasn’t. But if those first two times I fell in love were not love, than I don’t know what love is. (Do not cue Foreigner here). This was the lens through which I was reading Fitzgerald – three unrequited loves, and only 15 years old!<br /><br />When I was 12, I fell in love for the first time. The person I fell in love with was much older than me. I don’t know if he ever even knew I existed, though I made every attempt possible (in the pre-internet days when I couldn’t cyber-stalk him) to make myself noticed. I was a non-entity, as 12-year-olds tend to. That whole situation has colored my entire life since. I will go no further into details. But I was an incredible fool (“colossal vitality of his illusion”). I was reading Romeo & Juliet for god’s sake. I believed that if only I had enough faith, if only I tried hard enough, IF ONLY, we would be together. I believed we were “meant to be” in a way that only an innocent child can believe such a thing and not be incredibly creepy. And you cannot argue with a 12 year old who is convinced of something, especially one as stubborn as me. (“It was an extraordinary gift for hope…”)<br /><br />When I realized it wasn’t going to work out the way I had planned, there I was – Gatsby reaching out to the green dock light across the Sound. There I was, setting up my entire life so that this person would happen to someday show up at my party. That is where Gatsby really began for me, where he entered my life. I was Jay Gatsby before I ever knew of him.<br /><br />I’ve been revisiting the novel in the last few weeks, reading it to Brendan at night as he falls asleep. This might be close to the tenth time I’ve read this novel. I find myself tearing up at certain passages. Though this book has always moved me, something about reading it out loud, 17 years down the road, has brought tears to my eyes more than once. I can feel Gatsby’s longing over the years…I can feel his heartbreak that hot afternoon at the Plaza. I mean that I can literally feel it. My heart is breaking for him as I write this. And in a sense, breaking for myself at 12 at the same time. The images from The Great Gatsby have become part of my own personal mythology.<br /><br />Here are some of the quotes I’ve underlined in the book over the years. Some are fabulous sentences, some evocative images and some have just spoken to me as if Fitzgerald just got it. It’s the best I can do in terms of a review.<br /><br /><br /><br /><ul><br /><br /><li>It was one of those rare smiles with a quality of eternal reassurance in it, that you may come across four or five times in life. It faced–or seemed to face–the whole external world for an instant, and then concentrated on you with an irresistible prejudice in your favor. It understood you just so far as you wanted to be understood, believed in you as you would like to believe in yourself and assured you that it had precisely the impression of you that, at your best, you hoped to convey.</li><br /><br /><br /><li>On Sunday morning while church bells rang in the villages alongshore, the world and its mistress returned to Gatsby’s house and twinkled hilariously on his lawn.</li><br /><br /><br /><li>The city seen from the Queensboro Bridge is always the city seen for the first time, in its first wild promise of all the mystery and the beauty in the world.</li><br /><br /><br /><li>The exhilarating ripple of her voice was a wild tonic in the rain.</li><br /><br /><br /><li>A pause; it endured horribly.</li><br /><br /><br /><li>He had been full of the idea so long, dreamed it right through to the end, waited with his teeth set, so to speak, at an inconceivable pitch of intensity.</li><br /><br /><br /><li>Daisy put her arm through his abruptly but he seemed absorbed in what he had just said. Possibly it had occurred to him that the colossal significance of that light had now vanished forever. Compared to the great distance that had separated him from Daisy it had seemed very near to her, almost touching her. It had seemed as close as a star to the moon. Now it was again a green light on a dock. His count of enchanted objects had diminished by one.</li><br /><br /><br /><li>No amount of fire or freshness can challenge what a man will store up in his ghostly heart. (My.favorite.line.from.a.novel.ever.)</li><br /><br /><br /><li>But the rest offended her–and inarguably, because it wasn’t a gesture but an emotion. She was appalled by West Egg, this unprecedented “place” that Broadway had begotten upon a Long Island fishing village–appalled by its raw vigor that chafed under the old euphemisms and by the too obtrusive fate that herded its inhabitants along a short cut from nothing to nothing. She saw something awful in the very simplicity she failed to understand.</li><br /><br /><br /><li>He wanted nothing less of Daisy than that she should go to Tom and say: “I never loved you.” After she had obliterated three years with that sentence they could decide upon the more practical measures to be taken. One of them was that, after she was free, they were to go back to Louisville and be married from her house–just as if it were five years ago.</li><br /><br /><br /><li>“I wouldn’t ask too much of her,” I ventured. “You can’t repeat the past.”<br /><br />“Can’t repeat the past?” he cried incredulously. “Why of course you can!”<br /><br />He looked around him wildly, as if the past were lurking here in the shadow of his house, just out of reach of his hand.<br /><br />“I’m going to fix everything just the way it was before,” he said, nodding determinedly. “She’ll see.”</li><br /><br /><br /><li>He talked a lot about the past and I gathered that he wanted to recover something, some idea of himself perhaps, that had gone into loving Daisy. His life had been confused and disordered since then, but if he could once return to a certain starting place and go over it all slowly, he could find out what that thing was. . . .</li><br /><br /><br /><li>Their eyes met, and they stared together at each other, alone in space. With an effort she glanced down at the table.<br /><br />"You always look so cool,” she repeated.<br /><br />She had told him that she loved him, and Tom Buchanan saw.</li><br /><br /><br /><li>”An Oxford man!” He was incredulous. “Like hell he is! He wears a pink suit.” </li><br /><br /><br /><li>But with every word she was drawing further and further into herself, so he gave that up and only the dead dream fought on as the afternoon slipped away, trying to touch what was no longer tangible, struggling unhappily, undespairingly, toward that lost voice across the room.</li><br /><br /><br /><li>There was a ripe mystery about it, a hint of bedrooms upstairs more beautiful and cool than other bedrooms, of gay and radiant activities taking place through its corridors and of romances that were not musty and laid away already in lavender but fresh and breathing and redolent of this year’s shining motor cars and of dances whose flowers were scarcely withered.</li><br /><br /><br /><li>He stretched out his hand desperately as if to snatch only a wisp of air, to save a fragment of the spot that she had made lovely for him.</li></ul><br />I appreciate a good book, a well written book. A book that sucks you in with its language and paints for you a world that you know, or don’t know; gives you a new light, or illuminates an old one. But then there are books that speak to you – that feel as if they were plucked secretly out of your heart. In Gatsby, it seemed as though Fitzgerald had beautifully rendered in poetry my own experience. To feel that someone gets what you’re going through so much that they can turn such pain and despair into something as magnificent as Gatsby is an amazing, amazing feeling. When I was younger, Gatsby was a comfort, providing a kindred spirit – a story, a despair, a drive, that I was intimately familiar with. Now it serves as a reminder of and connection to some core self that has been wrapped and buried under layers and layers of years and experiences I once never could have conceived of.<br /><br /><br />Once upon a time, when I was 12, I had a nightmare that I still vividly recall 17 years later. This person I was in love with was visiting – not visiting me, but back in the area. This person was “20 minutes away,” and I couldn’t get to him. No one would drive me to where he was. There was my chance – if I could only get there – and I couldn’t. It’s a feeling of complete and utter helplessness…one’s future is waiting just out of reach, and you just cannot get to it.<br /><br />Last year I heard through the grapevine that this person was coming back – literally 20 minutes away. And I could have easily found my way back into that situation, once again seeking out the opportunity to say, “Does my name mean anything to you? Did you ever know that my life revolved around you, and that its trajectory is entirely because of you?”<br /><br />Inside of me, my 12 year old self is always tugging at my sleeve, still looking for answers that at 29, I know will never come (“He’s afraid, he’s waited so long”). And to some extent, I don’t know that I want to know the answer. The likely truth would no longer be helpful. But she – the little lost girl still cowering inside me – still seeks those answers.<br /><br />I thought about taking that next chance to find answers, if only for her, in honor of who I once was. But my life is at a good place now and I do not want the emotional implosion that always comes along with these questions – from opening up these old wounds again. At some point, I had to take Gatsby as a lesson rather than a reflection. At some point, I had to learn to ignore the green light. The light will always be there, since it’s myself – my past, the life I once believed I would have but never did – that is glowing across the Sound. But I have learned that I don’t need to stand at night and reach out to it. At some point, I had to just turn around.<br /><br />Gatsby pursued Daisy, believing he could go back into the past and fix it, only to have reality shoved in his face at the Plaza that hot, hot day. (A day that feels more palpable, more real to me than any day I’ve ever read of in fiction.) For me, in the end I decided not to try once again to find answers, since I know what they will likely be. All of this is kept in a tightly closed box inside me, and I now prefer to keep it that way. That chapter of my life is best not reopened.<br /><br />I found out that he had a baby girl recently (and gave her a dumb, dumb name). I felt nothing. At last, I realize, it’s behind me.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2409977216037478078.post-2769064210847948242011-05-02T18:33:00.004-04:002011-05-03T13:56:47.701-04:00The Piano TeacherSo. <em>The Piano Teacher</em> was not AT ALL what I expected. What I thought was going to a teacher/pupil love affair story turned into something much darker, much stranger than I ever imagined. <br /><br />Erika Kohut is a piano teacher in her mid-30s. She’s drab, maybe frumpy, exacting and particular. She has no friends, she has no life besides music. She was trained to be a successful concert pianist, but was never much more than mediocre and so became an instructor at a conservatory in Vienna. From the outside, she is a picture of respectability. But after work, she roams the seedy districts, visits peep shows, and engages in a variety of other voyeuristic activities. <br /><br />Erika lives at home with her creepy, domineering mother with whom she often has hair-pulling fist fights over what time she came home and what dress she bought. Did I mention Erika is approaching 40? And that she and her mother sleep in the same bed, despite the fact that Erika has her own room? Mrs. Kohut has always believed her daughter was the best – or at least did everything she could to convince Erika of it – and has constantly been disappointed with her daughter’s inability to realize her full potential. She wants to keep her daughter all to herself.<br /><br />And then along comes Walter Kelmmer, a handsome, blonde engineering student who is also a talented pianist and taking lessons with Erika. Walter sees a challenge in Erika and begins to pursue her. He thought he bargained for a woman who was just waiting for someone like him to come along and help her loosen up, I suppose. He didn’t want anyone to know of his affection for his teacher for fear it might hurt his reputation with the other ladies – especially those his own age. But he had no idea what he was in for. <br /><br />Erika catches on that Walter is interested, and while at first it sort of serves as a joke between her and her mother, she eventually begins to see the possibilities. In a moment of jealousy, she puts shattered glass in the pocket of someone she thinks Walter is also interested in (another student). Because, you know, that’s what normal people do, right? After a good start in a bathroom, the “relationship” gets on a strange trajectory when Erika writes Walter a letter detailing all the, ah, peculiarities she has been saving up for. <br /><br />Walter reads the letter and keeps asking, “Are you serious?” But oh yes, she is – she shows him the box of accoutrements. <br /><br />I don't want to give the rest away, because I was pretty surprised by the ending, and by what lead up to the ending. I didn't see any of that coming. Nor had I seen Erika's box coming. Nor, I suppose, had I seen <em>The Piano Teacher</em> coming.<br /><br />The novel to me to revolved around power – who had the power. Mrs. Kohut wants to maintain absolute power over her daughter, but isn’t able to. As the authority figure in the relationship, one would typically conclude that Erika has the power in her “relationship” with Walter. As the male, Walter feels he has the power. Erika believes that by allowing Walter to believe he is in the power position, it will really be her. She tries to set the rules of the relationship with her letter, giving him the physical power but on her terms. And Walter does what she asks, but of course it doesn’t turn out to be what she wanted. Walter knew that would be the case, and of course with that knowledge, and with his act, he felt that he was in control. And with her final act, Erika has put herself back in control. Sort of. <br /><br /><br />Something about the text was a bit odd, with its drawn out and sometimes awkward metaphors; at times I wasn’t sure if that was the fault of the translation or the original text. Things like that can get extremely annoying and distracting, but I didn’t find it so in this case. The descriptions are lengthy, though there wasn’t a point where I wanted Jelinek to get on with it, and despite the graphic depictions of <em>everything</em>, I never found myself rolling my eyes. In 1988, the New York Times reviewer saw Erika’s violent fantasies as having been concocted by the author just for the shock value. I didn’t get that at all. Nothing seemed out of place, and I never thought to myself that something seemed contrived to get a reaction, in the way that <a href="http://kristinsbookblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/american-psycho.html">American Psycho </a>did. <br />What struck me, at least for the first two-thirds or so of the book was how little happened, without it seeming like nothing was happening. The bathroom scene isn’t until more than half-way through, and it isn’t until the last 50 pages that any action really gets going. It reminded me of real life - the fact that the overarching story of ourselves and the events that make up those stories are really few and far between. That the majority of our lives are mundane and average. Perhaps that's why I didn't feel that the long descriptions or the lack of action for most of the novel was out of place. It felt like reality.<br /><br />I’m still not sure what to think about <em>The Piano Teacher</em> – as in I’m not sure if I liked it or not. I wouldn’t say that I enjoyed it, but I found myself not wanting to put it down, which should say something. I was surprised by the ending; I was surprised by lead up to the ending; I was surprised by Erika, which again is saying something. The novel was made into a film in the last decade, which won a number of international awards. I don’t think that I want to see this novel visually, though. Reading it was enough for me.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2409977216037478078.post-18803179270934808482010-09-28T18:14:00.000-04:002010-09-29T08:42:36.311-04:00U.S.A. Trilogy<i>“I always felt that it might not be any good as a novel, but that it would at least be useful to add to the record.</i> ~John Dos <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_0" class="blsp-spelling-error">Passos</span><br /><br />In 1938, Jean Paul Sartre called John Dos <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_1" class="blsp-spelling-error">Passos</span> the “greatest living writer of our time.” A contemporary and sometimes <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_2" class="blsp-spelling-error">frienemy</span> of Hemingway and Fitzgerald, he was an obvious influence on Norman Mailer, E.L. Doctorow, Truman Capote, and Jack Kerouac. Sinclair Lewis said of one of Dos <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_3" class="blsp-spelling-error">Passos</span>’s first novels (<i>Manhattan Transfer</i>) that he had invented a whole new way of writing.<br /><br />I had never heard of John Dos <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_4" class="blsp-spelling-error">Passos</span>, or any of his writings, prior to delving into all of these book lists. And on these lists his name, in connection with the epic <i>U.S.A. Trilogy</i> specifically, keeps popping up again and again. Eventually, I came around to the first book in the trilogy, <i>42<span id="SPELLING_ERROR_5" class="blsp-spelling-error">nd</span> Parallel</i> and was completely blown away. (<a href="http://kristinsbookblog.blogspot.com/2008/12/42nd-parallel.html">See my review here</a>).<br /><br />In <i>U.S.A.</i>, Dos <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_6" class="blsp-spelling-error">Passos</span> merged a four unique styles in a manner that (as far as I am aware) had not been attempted before. In addition to the intertwined narratives of a dozen different characters, he incorporated poetic, staccato biographies, culled three decades worth of newspaper headlines and popular songs, and his own autobiographical, Joycean impressions in the section titled “Camera Eye.” All to give us a “picture” of America from the beginning of the 20<span id="SPELLING_ERROR_7" class="blsp-spelling-error">th</span> century to the stock market crash in ’29. It is truly an impressive undertaking – one that I found amazing in its technical aspect and moving in its emotional impact. My review for <i>42<span id="SPELLING_ERROR_8" class="blsp-spelling-error">nd</span> Parallel</i> really could serve as a readers response to the entire novel, so I don’t want to rehash the effusive praise I gave the novel there…so this post is much less of a review than a discussion of additional relevant material.<br /><br /><br /><br /><b></b><br /><b>Influence of Soviet Film</b><br /><br />It’s hard now to conceive of what a revolution and revelation the advent of film. I – as I suspect most people reading this blog – have always had movies around. They have always been part of the landscape of my life, and in a set form, or sets of forms, such as documentary or narrative. But at the beginning of film, probably until at least the 1930s, by which time “talkies” had been developed, the medium was an entirely new art, and everybody was trying to figure out how film should “be” or what it should express.<br /><br />This was also a time of great political and social unrest and experimentation and everybody was trying to find ways that this new medium could be used for their own purposes. One of those groups attempting to use film for societal and political purposes was the socialist and communist movements both in the United States and in Russia. Because of the camera’s ability to objectively capture the economic disparity of the world, the leftist political movements saw the documentary style as being an opportunity to bring their “revolutionary consciousness” to the people. There were things going on in the world that those with all the power (and all the money and the means of distribution) <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_9" class="blsp-spelling-error">didn</span>’t want the populace to see, but with the availability of the camera, now they could. Two chiefs filmmakers of this tradition are Eisenstein (famous for “The Battleship Potemkin”) and <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_10" class="blsp-spelling-error">Dziga</span> <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_11" class="blsp-spelling-error">Vertov</span>, whose <i>Man with a Movie Camera</i> could in some ways be seen as the cinematic precursor to <i>U.S.A.</i><br /><br />Dos <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_12" class="blsp-spelling-error">Passos</span> was directly involved in this cinematic movement. He co-founded in a group called the New Playwrights in the late 1920s which drew upon the ideas set forth by the leftist cinematic faction, specifically a group known as the Workers’ Film and Photo League. The League’s intent was to use the movie camera to document the disparity in the economic conditions of the proletariat versus the, well, Big Money. <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_13" class="blsp-spelling-error">Vertov</span>’s concept of the Camera Eye (or <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_14" class="blsp-spelling-error">Kino</span> Eye – here to distinguish it from the <i>U.S.A.</i> section) was very influential on this group. The <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_15" class="blsp-spelling-error">Kino</span> Eye was an experimental technique of <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_16" class="blsp-spelling-error">filmmaking</span> that used montage and other methods to explore the visible world.<br /><br />The Film and Photo League created another organization called <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_17" class="blsp-spelling-error">Nykino</span> (New York <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_18" class="blsp-spelling-error">Kino</span>) in 1934. Dos <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_19" class="blsp-spelling-error">Passos</span> joined forces occasionally with <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_20" class="blsp-spelling-error">Nykino</span> and a later incarnation called Frontier Films by <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_21" class="blsp-spelling-error">cowriting</span> subtitles and commentary for their films. He was named as an advisory board member and consultant to Frontier Films in 1937, but shortly thereafter had an ideological falling out of sorts with the “official” left, and this shift in loyalty was a defining factor in Dos <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_22" class="blsp-spelling-error">Passos</span>’s subsequent falling out with the literary critics of whom he was once a darling.<br /><br /><br />Dos <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_23" class="blsp-spelling-error">Passos</span> is one of the first writers (that I know of) to integrate the methods used in <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_24" class="blsp-spelling-error">filmmaking</span> into literature. The concepts and techniques developed by <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_25" class="blsp-spelling-error">Vertov</span> and his contemporaries (specifically montage) are most evident in the Newsreel sections, and Dos <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_26" class="blsp-spelling-error">Passos</span> gives an upside-down nod to this influence in “Camera Eye” section. The interesting part of these “nods” is that neither are true depictions of what the workers’ cinema philosophy intended them for. I said the Camera Eye sections were upside-down since the intent behind the Soviet concept of the <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_27" class="blsp-spelling-error">Kino</span> Eye was pure documentary, but the Camera Eye in <i>U.S.A.</i> is the only part of the text that is subjective and not objective. (Dos <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_28" class="blsp-spelling-error">Passos</span>, in an interview with the Paris Review stated that the Camera Eye was the valve for his subjective feelings, allowing the rest of the novel to be approached objectively.) Newsreels in the workers’ cinema were used to show the relationship between the workers economic conditions to an overall worldwide class struggle. Dos <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_29" class="blsp-spelling-error">Passos</span> uses the newsreels to give public context to the private events in the narrative sections – tying together what is happening in the background – History with a capital H – while the lives of the characters march on (or not). Some <a href="http://thesecondpass.com/?p=1663">have expressed frustration over the occasional puzzling nature of the Newsreel</a>s, but I felt they simply gave a general idea of the buzz, like a transcript of flipping through television stations.<br /><br /><p align="center">************************<br /></p><br /><br /><i>The U.S.A. Trilogy</i> is not without its problems. The “Camera Eye” sections were the weakest in execution. A reader needs a good understanding of Dos <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_30" class="blsp-spelling-error">Passos</span>’s own biography to get anything out of them. Otherwise, it’s as disorienting as being thrown into Joyce’s <i>Ulysses</i> without a road map. The section was included to give the novel a personal perspective to counterbalance the documentary style, but it’s often confusing at best. I can’t say that the novel would be better without it, but I <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_31" class="blsp-spelling-error">didn</span>’t feel that these portions added something necessary to it.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/03/16/bookend/bookend.html">Richard <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_32" class="blsp-spelling-error">Gilman</span> in the New York Times wrote</a>, "<i>U.S.A.</i> <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_33" class="blsp-spelling-error">isn</span>’t tragic, which is precisely why so much of it feels cold and mechanical; tragedy implies personal destiny, moral choice, existential dilemma, and these conditions are almost wholly missing. Instead of fates we have personal disasters arising from involvements or confrontations with the vast, corrupting power of social reality, particularly economic reality… <em>U.S.A.</em> filled a need for a collective novel, whose real protagonist…was the entire nation. And bringing this off – at any level – called less for the talents of a true novelist than for those of a reporter, a sharp observer. This is why his biographies and Newsreels are the best parts of <i>U.S.A.</i> and the Camera Eyes and narratives, demanding invention, are the worst.”<br /><br />I cannot argue with those criticisms, except that I did found the narratives much more on par with the rest of the novel (minus the Camera Eye) than <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_34" class="blsp-spelling-error">Gilman</span> gives Dos <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_35" class="blsp-spelling-error">Passos</span> credit for. But it’s true the narratives are cold – they are objective, and Dos <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_36" class="blsp-spelling-error">Passos</span> offers no redemption, no real crisis and no sympathy for the characters. Some he clearly views with contempt (Barrow, for instance). The author here simply records their lives, from the enthusiasm and <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_37" class="blsp-spelling-error">brightsidedness</span> of the dawn of the 20<span id="SPELLING_ERROR_38" class="blsp-spelling-error">th</span> century through the bitterness that culminated in the crash and the depression –all their triumphs which turn to failures, leading to the great failure, once again the personal reflecting the public and vice <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_39" class="blsp-spelling-error">versa</span>. There is no plot, really, other than the march of time. In this manner his style is much more journalistic than one might desire in a Great American Novel contender. But it's a <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_40" class="blsp-spelling-error">condender</span> nonetheless.<br /><p align="center"><br />********************************<br /></p><br />There are so many different angles that someone could come to this text from. The influence of the Machine Age; the influence of the documentary movement generally (and not just in film) of the 1930s and its role in Dos <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_41" class="blsp-spelling-error">Passos</span>’s popularity as a writer of the public/political sphere versus Fitzgerald or Hemingway, who were writing about the private sphere and whose popularity did not gain critical success until decades later; the idea of the reclamation of language for the masses (“<i>USA</i> is the speech of the people”); the influence of Dadaism; the influence of the media, particularly as portrayed in the Newsreels and the life of J. Ward <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_42" class="blsp-spelling-error">Moorehouse</span>. This novel is ripe for term papers.<br /><br />Which brings me to my final point. With American English literature courses so heavy on the Lost Generation, why has Dos <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_43" class="blsp-spelling-error">Passos</span> become, well, lost? Once a contender for the Great American Novel (at least of the 20<span id="SPELLING_ERROR_44" class="blsp-spelling-error">th</span> century), how has <i>U.S.A.</i> come to be forgotten? To quote the New York Times: “At the time of his death, at 74 (in 1970), some people were surprised to learn that he was still alive. In a literary sense, his death had been decreed by critics during the last two decades of his life. He was considered a museum piece, a totem admired behind glass but not to be touched. Three American writers of his generation – Hemingway, Faulkner and Steinbeck – had received the Nobel Prize in Literature. Dos <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_45" class="blsp-spelling-error">Passos</span>, once considered their equal, received only diminishing respect.” Dos <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_46" class="blsp-spelling-error">Passos</span> continued to write well beyond the 1930s, publishing eighteen books after <i>The Big Money</i> appeared in 1936. As mentioned earlier, within a few years of the publication of the final volume in the trilogy, Dos <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_47" class="blsp-spelling-error">Passos</span> broke with the radical left movement in America, and with that fell out of critical esteem within a decade as his political opinions moved farther and farther to the right. Some critics claimed his shift in political ideology came from a cowardly inability to follow through on his socialistic ideals once he became a literary celebrity, and of course had some money.<br /><br />In that externally imposed fall from critical grace, he was banished from the canon, but would likely have fallen out of favor anyway along with other more naturalistic writers such as Dreiser and Lewis. Again to quote <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_48" class="blsp-spelling-error">Gilman</span> in the New York Times, “Dos <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_49" class="blsp-spelling-error">Passos</span> and the times changed; the communal air darkened and lightened, throwing up new criteria, as it always does…It has a permanent place in our histories, I think, but only a precarious one in our literature.” (As Dos <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_50" class="blsp-spelling-error">Passos</span> himself stated decades earlier.)<br /><br /><i>U.S.A.</i> is tricky. It's history driven (as opposed to being plot or character driven). It's unique among its contemporaries. It is decidedly different than the personal narratives put forward by Fitzgerald and Hemingway. It's part modernist and experimental in the style of James Joyce, though not entirely. It has many elements of naturalism in the style of Dreiser, or a Sinclair Lewis - particularly in the journalistic prose, though I felt Dos <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_51" class="blsp-spelling-error">Passos</span> was a better writer technically - certainly better than Dreiser. It internalizes cinematic devices and philosophies, the aesthetic appreciation of the machine, and melds it into something truly different, truly its own. What results from this amalgam of styles and influences, both literary and non-literary is the <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_52" class="blsp-spelling-error">cadance</span> of a modern age just dawning upon America.<br /><br />I truly loved <i>The U.S.A. Trilogy</i>. I not only found it compelling in all aspects, it inspired me to look deeper, to find the story behind. It led me to seek out <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_53" class="blsp-spelling-error">Vertov</span> and Soviet film theory and all other sorts of obscure topics that I never would have bothered with otherwise. I want to learn more about other events that influenced or passed by the characters in the narratives, such as the workers strikes and Sacco & <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_54" class="blsp-spelling-error">Vanetti</span>. That said, without a basic understanding of the background – of what Dos <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_55" class="blsp-spelling-error">Passos</span> was doing with the structure of the trilogy, the average reader would likely be turned off or completely lost. Because what average reader wants to watch Russian montage films from the 1930s as research just to understand a novel? As literature itself, it has its legitimate criticisms. Nonetheless it contributed something very important to the 20<span id="SPELLING_ERROR_56" class="blsp-spelling-error">th</span> Century novel, and for that alone it deserves its spot among any top list. Personally, I really liked it despite its flaws. It’s experiences such as this that make my whole “reading a list” a worthwhile endeavor.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2409977216037478078.post-62511388622731879282010-09-08T12:07:00.002-04:002010-09-09T11:04:11.609-04:00The Age of Innocence<blockquote>EACH TIME YOU HAPPEN TO ME ALL OVER AGAIN.</blockquote><em>The Age of Innocence</em> is my second – no, third – foray into the world of Edith Wharton. I wasn’t particularly thrilled with either <em>The House of Mirth</em> or <em>Ethan Frome</em>. <em>The Age of Innocence</em> covers much the same ground as those other novels: men and women who are trapped within the conventions of society and who are left unable to pursue the life that would truly make them happy. With <em>The Age of Innocence</em>, however, I immediately felt settled into it, much like I felt with <em><a href="http://kristinsbookblog.blogspot.com/2010/06/lord-jim.html">Lord Jim</a></em>. Just coming out of my year-and-a-half with <em>The Alexandria Quartet</em> and the pseudo-philosophical hilarious poppycock that is <em>Women in Love</em>, and staring in the face of the remaining 10 novels on the Modern Library list, none of which are under 450 pages, perhaps <em>The Age of Innocence</em> was just what I needed: short and light. Not light in terms of subject matter, because I found it to be heart wrenching (more on that below), but because there isn’t any hidden meaning, no subtext. It’s straight-forward, conventional storytelling.<br /><br />Newland Archer is a smart young lawyer and part of New York’s upper crust society. He has just been promised marriage to May Welland, a smart young lady of the same Old New York hoity-toities, though their engagement hasn’t been officially announced yet. Newland and May are the perfect couple. But a scandal erupts in the family when May’s cousin, Ellen arrives. She had married a European Count and had recently run away from her husband, with the Count’s secretary (as protector? as lover?) under suspicious circumstances. Not only is that the material for 1870s shock-and-awe, the family has dared – DARED, I tell you! – to allow Ellen out into the world of theater, opera, and balls, as if they had no sense of decorum. This requires Newland and May to announce their engagement earlier than anticipated – in order to add “backup” to the public outrage at this break from tradition.<br /><br />Ellen and Newland were old child playmates, and in light of his connection to May’s family he feels it is his duty to some extent to help Ellen. Slowly they begin to spend a bit more time together than perhaps they should, and it becomes clear that they harbor feelings for each other.<br />Newland is torn between the life his “people” expect him to live – a life so expected that he probably never wondered if it really was the life that he truly wanted for himself – and the life he has now discovered his heart wants him to pursue. He tries – really he does – to let go of Ellen, but he keeps getting pulled back in. They should have been together – all their life they should have been together, but because of their own limitations and the rules and commitments of their own lives, they simply couldn’t be. The rest of their lives – or at least Newland’s – was going on with the life that was chosen for him, so to speak, by his not questioning it until Ellen came along – and wondering what might have been. And when, in the end, he has the chance to strike it back up again, when they are both older, Newland is a widower, he decides not to try. He has locked that time up in his heart, and to see Ellen again would be to shatter the place she held in his heart. Nothing would be as he had imagined it for decades. And Newland chooses to live with his dreams and illusions locked away rather than pursue a reality that would only be disappointing.<br /><blockquote>Archer had pictured often enough, in the first impatient years, the scene of his return to Paris; then the personal vision had faded, and he had simply tried to see the city as the setting of Madame Olenska's life. Sitting alone at night in his library, after the household had gone to bed, he had evoked the radiant outbreak of spring down the avenues of horse-chestnuts, the flowers and statues in the public gardens, the whiff of lilacs from the flower-carts, the majestic roll of the river under the great bridges, and the life of art and study and pleasure that filled each mighty artery to bursting. <b><em>Now the spectacle was before him in its glory, and as he looked out on it he felt shy, old-fashioned, inadequate: a mere grey speck of a man compared with the ruthless magnificent fellow he had dreamed of being....</em></b></blockquote><br />I can see two factions of people arising over this novel: those who think Newland is scum for pursuing Ellen as much as he does both before and after (but mostly after) his marriage to May, and those who think Newland is a coward for not bucking the hoity-toities and running away with Ellen and living happily ever after, as he had planned to do many times. But I’m not mad at Newland – in fact, I completely understand, because to some extent I’ve been there. More than once, in more ways than one.<br /><br />Let’s see…there was the time when I was engaged (not to Shawn),set to graduate college, get a job, get married, and live a conventional life. And then, during my final finals week, a German exchange student showed up on my doorstep for a party. In this case, it was the Ellen/Newland situation, and it ended like Ellen and Newland ended. He and I have kept in contact over the 8 years that have intervened since, have both gotten married, had children, etc. Though there have been mention of someday getting together, I don’t want to. I have that memory – of us in our early 20s, trying to navigate through our not-really-a-relationship-but-something, and I know that meeting his wife and his son would not be beneficial. It’s adding an unnecessary epilogue to our long ago completed story. I do hope our children become penpals, though.<br /><blockquote><p>"It's more real to me here than if I went up," he suddenly heard himself say; and the fear lest that last shadow of reality should lose its edge kept him rooted to his seat as the minutes succeeded each other. </p><p>He sat for a long time on the bench in the thickening dusk, his eyes never turning from the balcony. At length a light shone through the windows, and a moment later a man-servant came out on the balcony, drew up the awnings, and closed the shutters. </p><p>At that, as if it had been the signal he waited for, Newland Archer got up slowly and walked back alone to his hotel. </p></blockquote>And then there was the time when I was married (not to Shawn), terribly unhappy because the situation was abusive in all ways except physical, and I know that wasn’t far behind, and then someone showed up in my life, well, emerged from the background more than showed up, that showed me that it didn’t have to be that way. It gave me the confidence to resist within my marriage, which lead to a complete breakdown and I got out of that nightmare. And that relationship ended up like Newland and Ellen should have. Well, should have by some people’s romantic notions.<br /><br />And then there were the multiple times when I projected the Ellen/Newland situation onto various relationships of varying seriousness. Because I’m like that sometimes. I suppose this cynic really does have a romantic streak, but it’s always of the tragic nature.<br /><br />But really, what Newland does is what most of us would do. Because it takes a lot of effort, courage, and money to go against what is expected of you, and it’s difficult to start your life over from scratch.<br /><br /><blockquote><p>"For US? But there's no US in that sense! We're near each other only if we stay far from each other. Then we can be ourselves. Otherwise we're only Newland Archer, the husband of Ellen Olenska's cousin, and Ellen Olenska, the cousin of Newland Archer's wife, trying to be happy behind the backs of the people who trust them." </p><p>"Ah, I'm beyond that," he groaned. </p><p>"No, you're not! You've never been beyond. And I have," she said, in a strange voice, "and I know what it looks like there." </p></blockquote>And let’s face it, if Newland had left pregnant May to run away with Ellen, there would be few who sided with him, not only in the reality of the book, but in the reality of the readers. Here’s a man who did not follow his heart – he stood by his responsibility. Outside of romantic books, isn’t that what we always expect of people? Newland even says so himself:<br /><p><blockquote>Yet there was a time when Archer had had definite and rather aggressive opinions on all such problems, and when everything concerning the manners and customs of his little tribe had seemed to him fraught with world-wide significance.<br /><br />"And all the while, I suppose," he thought, "real people were living somewhere, and real things happening to them ..." </blockquote><p></p>Wharton published <em>The Age of Innocence</em> in 1920 – already at the dawn of the age of Fitzgerald, the roaring 20s, and “new money.” The world of <em>Innocence</em>, set in the 1870s, was long gone – the age of old money, ruled by long-standing Dutch and English families with strict rules of behavior, decorum, and honor. A world in which it was “daring” to live above a certain street. Now there was long-distance telephone, and the Met was no longer an out-of-the-way haunt that he and Ellen could have escaped to unnoticed for their clandestine meeting. Remember, this was only five years before the publication of <em>The Great Gatsby</em>.<br /><br />Up until around Chapter 22 or 23, I enjoyed <em>The Age of Innocence</em> – much more than I thought that I would. I found the story compelling, captivating, interesting, the writing excellent. But then I got to, like I said, Chapter 22 or 23 and BAM. Wharton turns up the emotion – an emotion that totally hit home – and I was in love. There are certain novels that can just speak to you – it’s as if they know what’s in your heart and just grab it, reflect it back to you. Perhaps –no, probably- in the hands of a lesser wordsmith, I would have found the whole thing would be cheesy and passionless, and this would be a very different review. But <em>The Age of Innocence</em> worked for me – totally, completely. It’s now one of my favorites of all time.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2409977216037478078.post-70954367034945039372010-08-23T18:48:00.001-04:002010-08-23T18:48:00.250-04:00Age of Innocence - A Brief PostThere will be so much more to follow regarding Wharton's <em>The Age of Innocence</em>. I just finished it today, and I'm <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_0" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">devastated</span>. I just wanted to share that - DEVASTATED. I will need to digest this for a bit before my long post.<br /><br /><a href="http://kristinsbookblog.blogspot.com/2009/10/extremely-loud-and-incredibly-close.html">It's given me heavy boots.</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2409977216037478078.post-1204265529216422032010-06-01T13:14:00.004-04:002010-06-01T13:44:14.903-04:00I, Claudius<div><div>I’ve been reading <em>I, Claudius</em> since some unknown date in January or February. I know that I was reading it at the beginning of March when I saw Elaine Pagels give a talk on the Book of Revelations. She was showing photos of Roman statues in Aphrodisias, Turkey – including one of Claudius. My instantaneous reaction was, “I know him!”<br /></div><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_7u7mrm6Qvbc/TAVAX7nIlfI/AAAAAAAAARM/91k57-PPCGU/s1600/seb_sculp_photo2.jpg"><img style="MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 166px; FLOAT: left; HEIGHT: 200px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5477855301649077746" border="0" alt="" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_7u7mrm6Qvbc/TAVAX7nIlfI/AAAAAAAAARM/91k57-PPCGU/s200/seb_sculp_photo2.jpg" /></a><br /><div></div><div>And after that spontaneous outburst in my mind, I realized that “I know him” is an apt description of how I felt while reading <em>I, Claudius</em>. Robert Graves writes in a very conversational style – at times a little too conversational. Claudius begins telling us something, and then in the middle of the story will say, “I’ll come back to this, let me tell you about this other thing first.” I don’t know how much of Claudius’s writings exist today, and I wonder if Graves at all was attempting to imitate the Emperor’s actual style. At times this casualness was annoying, but overall it lent itself to the feeling that it really was a conversation. I felt like Claudius’s pal, his ally (of which he didn’t have many). It was a personal book - Claudius is put down by everybody except a few who figure out he really did know what was up. And they all die. Who can’t feel for a guy like that? </div><br /><div><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_7u7mrm6Qvbc/TAVAk0N1SFI/AAAAAAAAARU/tRp6J_KQb6g/s1600/Presentation3.jpg"><img style="MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 208px; FLOAT: left; HEIGHT: 155px; CURSOR: hand" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5477855523002206290" border="0" alt="" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_7u7mrm6Qvbc/TAVAk0N1SFI/AAAAAAAAARU/tRp6J_KQb6g/s200/Presentation3.jpg" /></a>The main problem with <em>IC</em> is keeping track of all of the relationships. There is so much intermarriage and adoption and people with the same name that I don’t imagine there is anyone who could possibly keep track. I wonder how the Romans themselves kept track of it themselves. I created this chart which was very helpful, but should give you a clear idea of how complicated it was.<br /></div><div>There were moments in <em>IC</em> when I was genuinely freaked out, almost afraid to turn out my book light. The downfall of Germanicus, for example – the dead babies under the floor and the mysterious message on the wall. But generally, a feeling of fear pervades the entire novel - for Claudius, members of the imperial family, and the masses. Claudius had a physical ailment of some sort, and was often regarded as an idiot. He is wisely advised early on to keep up the ruse…Graves portrays him as a deeply intelligent man, but must play dumb in order to avoid being murdered. Everyone has to watch out…you could have no friends or confidants, as informers were paid well to make up stories and turn people in to the Emperor, who – whether Tiberius or Caligula – rather enjoyed killing his subjects. This was all complicated by the fact that they all seemed mentally ill to some degree or another, and no one was ever sure what was expected of them. I cannot even imagine living in that environment. Well, to some degree I can, but that’s another story entirely. </div><div><br />I have always loved history – I used to watch the History Channel all the time back when they actually showed real, critical historical programming, not the shit that feeds into the Dan Brown fanatics need for conspiracy. And I really have no interest in Ice Road Truckers. But my knowledge about Ancient Rome (and Greece, and really a lot of the Middle Ages up to the Renaissance) is severely lacking. I recognize this, and have most of Will Durant’s <em>Story of Civilization</em> waiting for the day when I finally get around to cracking them open. I could have probably named a few Roman Emperors, given you some plots from Shakespeare’s (and Hollywood’s) interpretations and told you that “Bread and Circuses” was what lead to Rome’s downfall, but that’s about it. So much of the information in <em>IC</em> was new. I knew Imperial Rome was messed up, but I didn’t know it was <em>that</em> messed up. Graves really wet my appetite to learn more about Rome, so perhaps <em>Caesar and Christ</em> will get opened sooner than I anticipated. (But definitely after I finish this damn Modern Library list!)<br /></div><div>I wouldn’t call <em>I, Claudius</em> suspenseful, because it doesn’t take long to figure out what is going to happen to everybody, but it was enthralling. I am looking forward to reading the second part of this “autobiography,” <em>Claudius the God</em>. I don’t see how it made it to #14 on the list, as there are novels far better than this farther down on the list. But there it is. Overall, though, it’s a good book.</div></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2409977216037478078.post-12681046476424983812010-03-07T16:44:00.001-05:002011-07-08T09:50:03.235-04:00An American TragedyI’ve been slow lately. I’ve been slow in reading and slow in reviewing. There are many reasons for this. Obviously, as I’ve said many times, I have a 6-month old. Along with my regular job and all the other duties of life, I just don’t have that much time. I don’t know if I’m going to get through the Modern Library list this year, but I’m going to do my best and not worry about it.<br /><br /><br />Now onto <em>An American Tragedy</em>.<br /><br />In general, I don’t read exciting books. I don’t think about this too often, but every now and then I come across a book that actually is exciting – or, you know, has a real plot, a real climax that the whole novel is working towards – and I realize that I don’t read page turners. Personally, excitement isn’t a quality that I require for a novel to be good or enjoyable, and (for the most part) I wouldn’t say the books that I enjoy that are also lacking in excitement are boring. They just aren’t exciting. <em>An American Tragedy</em> is exciting, and it did make me think – briefly – that perhaps I should pick up some John Grisham novels or something. But then I look at the Calvino books on my shelf and rethink that.<br /><br />An American Tragedy started out at a slow pace. We first encounter Clyde Griffith as a teenager with his family, who are street preachers in Kansas City. He hates this. He hates the poverty of his family, and the humiliation he feels at having to stand on the corner and sing hymns. Clyde gets a job at a hotel as a bell hop, makes friends with the other bell hops, visits a prostitute and meets Hortense. <a href="http://kristinsbookblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/american-tragedy-and-more-holdups.html">I described her briefly here</a>. She’s a low-rung gold digger. Clyde is head-over-heals with her, but she couldn’t care less about him – she likes the money he spends on her in his attempts to get her to sleep with him. Hortense keeps leading him on, making him believe that if he just buys her this one item more, she’ll go to bed with him. But she never does.<br /><br />In the crescendo of their relationship, Hortense asks Clyde to buy her an expensive fur coat. She – again – leads him to believe that if he purchases the coat for her, she will definitely, finally sleep with him. It’s more than he can afford, but he intends to buy it for her anyway.<br /><br />Up until this point, we know that Clyde is a moron for fawning over Hortense in this manner. You just want to yell at Clyde to give it up. (1) She doesn’t like you; (2) she only wants you to buy her things; (3) she is not going to have sex with you; (4) You are aware of all of this. Find someone who is (1) cheaper; and (2) easier. But no, he is her pathetic lap dog. But it’s at this point that Clyde’s real personality starts to come out. Clyde’s sister, Esta, (who he seemed to have genuine affection for) had run away with a traveling actor who left her (pregnant) in Pittsburgh. Clyde had been giving his mother some money out of his earnings and part of that money had been going to Esta, and Clyde knew this – though his mother thought it was a secret. Esta was about to give birth, and his mother needed $50. As his mother is asking for this, Clyde HAS THE $50 IN HIS POCKET, that he was going to use as a down payment on Hortense’s coat. And what does Clyde do? He lies to his mother – he doesn’t have $50 and he couldn’t get it for her.<br /><br />I understand that Clyde’s a teenager, and he’s having his first love affair – of sorts – and wants to have a good time. And maybe my perception of this situation is colored by the fact that I now have a son, and can better see the point of view of his mother. She is embarrassed that she has to ask her son for money in the first place. And he knows that the money is going to support his destitute and very-pregnant sister who again he seemed to have real affection for. And he lies flat out about not having the money, and he intends to use this money to buy that whore Hortense a friggin’ fur coat.<br /><br />A little while later, Clyde and some of his friends go for a ride with a car that does not belong to them – one of the boys “borrowed” it from the owner, and intended to return it before the man knew it was gone. Nothing good could ever come of this scenario. They get late returning and in their haste run over a little girl, then try to escape from the pursuing police and crash the car. Clyde escapes and skips town before the police arrive on the accident scene.<br /><br />Clyde wanders around a bit and ends up in Chicago, working again as a bell hop in a hotel. One day, he encounters his uncle, whom he never met. Uncle Samuel Griffith owns a successful collar manufacturing business in New York. Clyde approaches Samuel, who ends up offering him a job. Clyde is then on his way to New York.<br /><br />The Lygurgus Griffiths consist of Mr. and Mrs. Griffith, the privileged, jerky son Gilbert, and a few daughters (I don’t remember if there were two or three – or maybe one – it doesn’t matter). Gilbert essentially runs the factory and is resentful of Clyde from the start. The Gilberts give Clyde the lowest level job they can and then ignore him. Eventually they feel enough duty towards him to invite him to dinner, where he meets some of the Lycurgus young set, including Sondra Finchley, the daughter of another factory owner. The Griffiths promote Clyde, putting him in charge of a sub-department, and soon thereafter meets one of his workers, Roberta. After encountering her one day at a park, they quickly strike up together.<br /><br />Roberta and Clyde have to keep everything a secret because of a policy against department heads dating employees, but also Clyde is worried that one of the Griffiths will see him with Roberta, just a working class girl, and think twice about him, both socially and professionally. It isn’t long before Clyde starts pressuring Roberta to take the relationship to the next level. When she expresses that she doesn’t want to do that – despite being working class, she is “respectable” in that sense – Clyde becomes a royal ass until Roberta finally gives in.<br /><br />All is well and good (in a sense), until Sondra Finchley decides – mostly as a joke against Gilbert Griffith – to start inviting Clyde to parties and dinners. Clyde falls head over heals for Sondra – mostly because of her position in Lycurgus society and what a pass into that society would mean for him. Not that he doesn’t like Sondra personally – I just think a lot of his feelings are wrapped up in her social position.<br /><br />Of course, Clyde starts to be mean to Roberta – cancelling dates with her, ignoring her mostly, except when he wants from her what he couldn’t get from Hortense. He lets Roberta know he’s going out socially with the Griffith crowd, but leaves Sondra out of it. Roberta starts to get down about it and frustrated. Clyde, because he clearly is a sociopath or clinical narcissist gets mad at Roberta for this, believing that she should be happy that he is being adopted, so to speak, by the upper crust.<br /><br />And then Roberta becomes pregnant. This is when the plot really picks up the pace. Clyde tries to find a way to end the pregnancy. He seeks some drugs to cause her to miscarry, which fail, and he tries to find a doctor to perform an abortion, but fails at that too. Roberta was fine with all of this. But when everything failed, she started to let Clyde know that she expected him to marry her, as he had led her to believe he would do one day anyway.<br /><br />Clyde DOES NOT want to marry Roberta, because his position with Sondra is pretty good and he expects to be able to marry her within a year. Obviously he cannot have this scandal, or go away or anything. Around this time, he comes across a newspaper article that describes an accident scene: two people (unidentified man and woman) take a boat out onto a lake. The boat overturns, the woman is found drowned, but no trace of the man. Clyde begins to hatch a plot: kill Roberta by drowning her in a lake and then escaping.<br /><br />I won’t go into all the details now, because they get really intricate. But I probably needn’t tell you that Clyde absolutely botches the whole thing. Like most clinical narcissists (I say “clinical” to distinguish narcissistic personality disorder from the popular terms narcissism meaning people who like to look at themselves in the mirror), he believes he is SOOOO smart in setting this whole thing up, which the local sheriff takes apart in a matter of a hours. Dreiser throws in one other interesting – yet small – twist. In the moment, Clyde cannot act. And then something happens – one of those physical things which leads to an accident that afterwards you cannot quite recall the details of how exactly it happened – and he hits Roberta with his camera. Not deliberately, but not entirely accidentally. And she falls, tipping the boat over, and Clyde with it. She cannot swim, and he decidedly doesn’t try to help. It didn’t happen as he had planned – which was to actively kill her. It was more of an accident – he plotted to kill her, and then it all sort of happens by accident. He is responsible for her death, but not in the exact way he had intended to be.<br /><br />The whole trial and denouement with the minister was anti-climactic, and made up more than 100 pages. But of course we had to know all that information. Which is something that I thought about throughout the entire novel: it is SO detailed, so intricately plotted. I kept wondering if Dreiser could have left any of it out and still had the novel, and I don’t know what the answer to that question is. Perhaps a more *technically skilled* novelist could have done something different with it, been more nontraditional with it, but if you are going from point A in Clyde’s life to the very end of it, yes – all of it had to be included. Because as with “real” life, every detail matters.<br /><br />One thing that bothered me was about Roberta and nobody seemed to be able to tell that she was pregnant. She was obviously slight of frame (when they pulled her body out of the water they said she weighed about 100 lbs.) so it should have been obvious – to the dress maker and to the police at least. But it wasn’t until the coroner thought to check that anyone realized she was. I know everyone is different, but I am only a little bit bigger than Roberta’s size (<10 lbs), and by 5 months (how far along Roberta was when she was murdered), it was getting fairly obvious that I had a decent size bump. I didn’t expect everyone to know, but like I said, some people should have guessed by then (like when the pulled her wet body from the lake). What was surprising to me was the nonchalantness with which abortion was approached. We as a culture would be shocked to be told of someone who treated abortion with such flippancy, and yet here it is, almost 100 years ago.<br /><br />Dreiser’s works, which really are bleak pictures of American life, wouldn’t really be the stuff of scandal – or at least you wouldn’t think so. They seem so “conventional.” But Dreiser was constantly having to make his works suitable for the public, dialing it down to something we could stand. After the publication of <em>An American Tradegy</em>, a publisher – Donald Friede, set up a censorship case, which he lost. He appealed and lost again. From Time Magazine, 1929:<br /><br /><blockquote>Obscene: Publisher Donald Friede, president of Covici-Friede Corp., formerly of the late Boni & Liveright, was convicted in Boston last week for violation of the Massachusetts statute forbidding distribution of objectionable literature. The book: Author Theodore Dreiser's An American Tragedy. The book's theme: how U. S. conventions and his own limitations caused a young man to murder his sweetheart.<br /><br />Not Obscene: Publisher Friede (see above) rushed from Boston to Manhattan to appear before a Court of Special Sessions. There his company's novel, The Well of Loneliness by Authoress Radclyffe Hall of England, was being attacked by the Society for the Suppression of Vice. Three judges decided this book was not obscene. The book's theme: Lesbianism.</blockquote><br />The confusion inherent in this is humorous. I wonder what the outcome would be today? Which is worse: how US conventions and personal limitations caused a young man to murder his girlfriend, or lesbianism. I think the answer might be lesbianism. Especially the <em>Well of Loneliness</em> kind….you know, not the Tila Tequila kind.<br /><br />Dreiser also has a reputation of being rather clumsy with his prose, and that definitely shone through much more in this novel than in <em>Sister Carrie</em>, which I read two years ago. I ran across an article by Garrison Keiler about that other novel in which he asked why everyone had gotten so upset about a novel that was so bad. His writing is clunky. Time Magazine called it “a pipe fitter's approach to writing” but in the end, he is able to weave a story together unlike what most of his contemporaries were doing. And though it’s almost laughable that it would be censored, there is still stuff there to surprise, and to shock, and to disturb.<br /><br />I see a pattern with Dreiser. His characters are often amoral – and though their actions are their “fault,” they are all also the product of their environment. They are the victims as well as the victimizer. He is part Dostoevsky, part <em>Of Human Bondage</em>, part Balzac. Somewhere I read that they are the flip side of the American Dream. Don’t come to Dreiser expecting a happy ending. Even when their characters get everything they want, they are still lacking. But if you want an American Dostoevskian view of the world, Dreiser beckons to you.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2409977216037478078.post-40952053596355177652010-02-22T10:22:00.002-05:002010-02-22T11:00:25.239-05:00The Salinger MythTwo interesting articles on the recently deceased J.D. Salinger.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.salon.com/books/jd_salinger/index.html?story=/books/feature/2010/02/08/jd_salinger_and_the_women">One at Salon.com</a><br /><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/01/us/01salinger.html">One at NY Times</a><br /><br />Salinger was only a recluse in that he shunned the media. Turns out, he didn't live in a cave, but appears to have pursued a life that on the surface was pretty much like the lives of us regular folks.<br /><br />We often have a stake in the myth of our favorite <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_0" class="blsp-spelling-error">heroes</span>, be them actors, atheletes, writers or politicians, and those myths are too often sternly defended. The truth is so much better.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2409977216037478078.post-9026169447146238012010-02-08T08:42:00.005-05:002010-02-11T11:59:45.094-05:00An American Tragedy and More Holdups<p>The goal of finishing the Modern Library is within sight. There are less than 20 left. But of course, life has been intervening. I’m in the middle of a crisis, which doesn’t seem to be the End of the World, which it seemed like last week. But it’s still affecting me and it’s so frustrating. <br /><br />But in the last day or so, I have been completely in to Dreiser’s An American Tragedy. I know he doesn’t have a reputation as the best writer from a technical perspective, but this plot is excellent. Right now, I DO NOT want to put this book down. I’m about half way through – nine days behind schedule – but I wanted to put down a few thoughts here to tide everyone over until I can post a complete review.<br /><br />I don’t want to dislike Clyde. We are all products of our environment, for better or for worse, and at first I tried to sympathize with him, particularly in the Hortense situation and the idea that he had to some extent help out his family when, as a teenage boy, he really just wanted to help himself out. I kept thinking back to “Of Human Bondage” and poor Philip in relation to Mildred and I was seeing Clyde in that context – through my “Poor Philip” glasses. All of that began to change when his mother asked him to loan her $50 to help out his sister, whom he dearly loved. He had the $50 in his pocket, which he intended to use to buy Hortense a fur coat. And he lied to his mother and told her he didn’t have the money.</p><p>Hortense is obviously a bitch, and sort of a gold digger. She only shows attention to Clyde in order to get material goods out of him, but on the other hand he only gives her material goods because he thinks he’ll get laid. But he doesn’t. He guesses that this is what Hortense is doing, but he persists. In this situation, I almost feel like they are meant for each other. But then there is the accident (nothing good ever comes from teenagers riding in cars together, especially when the car belongs to someone else – Saved By the Bell, anyone?) and Clyde runs away to Chicago where he meets his rich uncle who offers him a job back in Lycurgus, NY. </p><p>Now, we think, Clyde is going to turn his life around and make something of himself. He is going to realize how stupid he was in the Hortense situation and watch himself. And at first he does. But once he gets put in charge of a department (really, a sub-department), he soon thereafter picks up with one of his workers. Now, in general, I don’t have problems with that. And it appears at first that Clyde has genuine affections for Roberta, and it felt as if it weren’t for how his relatives would view this relationship, both because (a) she works under Clyde, which is expressly forbidden; and (b) she is clearly just a factory girl, and beneath the station to which Clyde aspires, I would guess that Roberta and Clyde would live happily ever after. But I have come to realize that with Dreiser, nobody lives happily ever after.</p><p>Everything is going ok with Clyde and Roberta, in general. But Clyde is a jerk, really. He pressures Roberta – who at heart really appears to be a good girl – into taking their relationship further than she wants, at least without a promise of marriage. And then he discovers Sondra Finchley. Sondra is of the Griffith’s upper crust, and meets Clyde at the one dinner his uncle invites him to. A few months later she sees him walking and picks him up in her car and drives him home. Sondra and some of her friends scheme to invite Clyde to some of their social functions, mostly to get at Gilbert, Clyde’s cousin, who is a jerk too. And of course, Clyde completely falls for Sondra and begins to neglect Roberta in a jerky way. He cancels dates at the last minute, or just doesn’t show up, and then lies about where he was, why he was there, and who he was with. Dreiser shows us Clyde’s inner thoughts about Roberta, which are essentially that she should be happy for him that he’s now got all these great friends and prospects, and who is she to have any claims over him.</p><p>Clyde – I really was “rooting” for you, here, but you keep screwing it up! </p><p>Roberta: Poor Roberta. She is perhaps a good match for Clyde – or would have been if he didn’t have his eye on being considered a “Griffith.” She perhaps would have been a good match if Clyde deserved anyone decent, which I’m not sure about. He pressures her into deeper relations, and while never actually promising to marry her, he hinted in such a way that Roberta obviously assumed that was what he meant. And he knew that is what she assumed, but let it go. I say that she appears to be a good girl, though sometimes I have paused about this, as Dreiser hints that she believes Clyde is more connected to the Griffiths than he actually is. How much of that belief was tied in with her feelings for him? </p><p>And now – Roberta is pregnant.</p><p>I know what is going to happen, vaguely – because I know the basic story on which Dreiser based this book. I know where this is going. My natural tendency would be to look up the details on wiki or some such site, but I don’t want to. For once, I am enjoying the suspense. </p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2409977216037478078.post-15000304181428456042010-01-27T07:16:00.000-05:002010-01-27T13:23:34.964-05:00The Old Wives' TaleReasons I thought I was going to dislike Arnold Bennett's <em>The Old Wives' Tale:</em><br /><br /><ol><li>It's called <em>The Old Wives' Tale</em>. Not a very exciting title. Now Lawrence - he knows how to mask a boring book with an exciting title.</li><li>The author's name is Arnold Bennett. Seems like he would be a model of Edwardian <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_0" class="blsp-spelling-error">snoozefests</span>.</li><li>Mr. Bennett is known to not have had any artistic ambitions in writing. He wrote for the money, and because he knew he could do better than others. ("Am I to sit still and see other fellows pocketing two guineas apiece for stories which I can do better myself? Not me. If anyone imagines my sole aim is art for art's sake, they are cruelly deceived.") Pshaw!</li><li>The novel begins by describing the Five Towns, St. Luke's Square, <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_1" class="blsp-spelling-error">Bursley</span>, etc. English village life. I'm sensing Lawrence here, or Wessex (even though I like Hardy), and I'm getting bored.</li><li>And speaking of Lawrence...Bennett's novel centers around two daughters of a shopkeeper. One is very conventional, the other a sprite. Bringing back memories of <em>The Rainbow. </em>Am I asleep here yet?</li></ol><p>No - I'm not asleep! To my utter surprise, <em><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_2" class="blsp-spelling-error">OWT</span> </em>slowly - but not too slowly - won me over. I... actually... began... to... like... it!</p><p>Reasons I ended up liking <em><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_3" class="blsp-spelling-error">OWT</span> </em>(despite my readiness to hate it):</p><ol><li>Mr. Bennett is a decent writer. Even if he was doing it for the money. </li><li><em>Unlike Lawrence,</em> Bennett is to the point. He didn't waste my time with page-long paragraphs signifying nothing. There is dialog, and actually has more moments of excitement than I have found is typical for an Edwardian novel. He makes ordinary people interesting.</li><li>It's actually humorous in some parts. I would give you some examples, but you would say, "Kristin, that's not really funny." But trust me, when you're reading the book, you will chuckle at a few things. Including: Sophia takes out <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_4" class="blsp-spelling-error">Povey's</span> wrong tooth; the ironic circumstances in which Mr. <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_5" class="blsp-spelling-error">Baines</span> dies; the reaction to Sophia's poodle. </li></ol><p><em><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_6" class="blsp-spelling-error">OWT</span> </em>concerns the <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_7" class="blsp-spelling-error">Baines</span> family. First Mr. and Mrs. <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_8" class="blsp-spelling-error">Baines</span>, who are raising their daughters Constance and Sophia. Then Sophia elopes with a loser (as always happens) and Constance marries one of the shop helpers. Mr. and Mrs. <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_9" class="blsp-spelling-error">Baines</span> die. Constance runs the shop. Her uncle-in-law kills his wife. Constance's husband dies and her son (Cyril) moves to London and generally is unappreciative of his mother's devotion. Sophia and loser husband move to Paris. He abandons her, but through her own pluck and smarts ends up running a successful pension on the Champs Elysee. After running into Cyril's <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_10" class="blsp-spelling-error">BFF</span> in Paris, she returns home to <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_11" class="blsp-spelling-error">Bursley</span> where she and Constance live out the rest of their years. <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_12" class="blsp-spelling-error">Ok</span>, I know that doesn't sound terribly interesting, or even simply not- boring, but I assure you - I, the most easily bored person on the face of the earth - was not bored. In fact, I rather enjoyed it. </p><p>Early 20<span id="SPELLING_ERROR_13" class="blsp-spelling-error">th</span> century England certainly did have its interesting literary circles, and Bennett was at times in the center of it. All circulating together you had Wells, Woolf, *James,* Conrad, Forster, etc. And they all went to each other's parties and made fun of each others spouses. Woolf - representative of a new modernist streak coming up in literature - had a heated public feud with Bennett over what makes a good novel, and whether the other's <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_14" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">novels</span> fit that model. Bennett said Woolf, among with other contemporary authors, had not "displayed the potential for mastering the novel." Woolf was equally vocal about her dislike for Bennett's style, calling him and other "materialist" novelists "mundane" and saying that their books could have been written by government workers. (IMO, she was wrong.) This went on for more than a decade. But when Bennett died, Woolf wrote the following in her diary: "Arnold Bennett died last night; which leaves me sadder than I should have supposed...I yet rather wished him to go on abusing me, and me abusing him." She described him as "a <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_15" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">lovable</span> genuine man; impeded, somewhat awkward in life; well meaning; ponderous; kindly; coarse; knowing he was coarse; ...glutted with success; wounded in his feelings; ...set upon writing; always taken in; deluded by splendor and success; but naive; an old bore; ...shopkeeper's view of literature; yet with the rudiments, covered over with fat and prosperity and the desire for hideous Empire furniture, of sensibility." I'm not sure if the quip about hideous <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_16" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">Empire</span> furniture is to be taken literally or if she is referring to his writing. Either way. I find it all fascinating, this interplay between these authors, and wish that I could go back and be invited to one of their parties. I wish I could be invited to one of their parties more than I wish that I could be invited to Paris c.1920 with Fitzgerald and Hemingway. I wish this even though parties with Woolf and co. would be much stuffier and high-brow and there would probably be less alcohol involved.</p><p><em>Old Wives' Tale</em> is kind of like a turnip. You're dreading it - you know you have to eat it, but you don't want to. You take the smallest bite possible, and lo and behold, it's not as bad as you thought it would be. It's not your favorite food, but you still don't mind eating it. <em><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_17" class="blsp-spelling-error">OWT</span> </em>isn't the best novel I've ever read - it won't knock your socks off. And I'm not <em>entirely</em> sure why it deserves to be considered one of the best of the 20<span id="SPELLING_ERROR_18" class="blsp-spelling-error">th</span> century - though it's <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_19" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">definitely</span> an improvement over some of the others. But it wasn't as terrible as I expected it to be. In fact, <em>Old Wives' Tale </em>was not at all what I was expecting. To my surprise, it turned out much better. </p><p>I never thought I would be comparing a novel to a turnip and meaning it as a compliment.</p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2409977216037478078.post-87313538671895182362010-01-26T16:21:00.000-05:002010-01-26T16:22:18.788-05:00Old Wives Tale QuoteNothing will sharpen the memory, evoke the past, raise the dead, rejuvenate the ageing, and cause both sighs and smiles, like a collection of photographs gathered together during long years of life.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2409977216037478078.post-63633482794061604542009-12-31T12:10:00.003-05:002010-07-02T12:40:55.064-04:00The Ginger ManI cannot say that I went into reading this book with an open mind. I was expecting not to like it. That expectation was largely based on <a href="http://www.dougshaw.com/Reviews/review99.html">Doug Shaw's review</a>. And guess what - once again he was right.<br /><p>Doug sums up the plot of <em>The Ginger Man</em> so succinctly, I will just let him tell it to you:</p><blockquote><p>Okay, okay, quiet down now, I got a joke for you. Stop me if you've heard this one: ...[Sebastian Dangerfield] walks into a bar, right? Gets blind drunk, smashes up some things, goes home, and pawns his woman's stuff to get more money to buy booze. Wait, it gets better. She gets mad, he smacks her, and she leaves eventually. He pawns the rest of her stuff, gets drunk, and finds another woman who has sex with him and falls in love with him...</p><p>Wait, it gets better... after this new woman falls in love with him, this guy walks into a bar. Gets blind drunk, smashes up some things, goes home, and pawns this new woman's stuff to get more money to buy booze. She gets mad, he smacks her, and she leaves eventually...</p><p>That plot synopsis I just gave you is the entire story of <em>The Ginger Man</em>. That one theme, over and over. And over.</p></blockquote><p>The Nation says that this novel is "a comic masterpiece." The New Yorker called it "a triumph of comic writing." Let me give you some quotes here, and you tell me if you think this is comedic:</p><blockquote></blockquote><blockquote><p>[Sebastian] took the child's pillow from under its head and pressed it hard on the screaming mouth.</p><p>"I'll kill it, God damn it, I'll kill it, if it doesn't shut up."</p></blockquote><p>AND</p><blockquote><p>[Sebastian's wife]: "That we've been starving. That the baby has rickets. And because you're drinking every penny we get. And this house too and that you slapped and punched me when I was pregnant, threw me out of bed and pushed me down the stairs. That we're in debt, owe hundreds of pounds, the whole loathsome truth."</p><p>...He slowly reached out and took the shade off the lamp. He placed it on his little table.</p><p>"Are you going to shut up?"</p><p>"No."</p><p>He took the lamp by the neck and smashed it to pieces on the wall.</p><p>"Now shut up."</p></blockquote><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>HOW ABOUT THIS:</p><blockquote>[Sebastian:] "Well god damn it, another word out of you and I'll bat you in the bloody face..."...Sebastian's arm whistled through the air. The flat of his palm cracked against the side of her face and Mary sat stunned. He slapped her again. "I'm going to kick the living shit out of you. Do you hear me?"</blockquote><p>That's hillarious, isn't it? Jay McInerney - whose book <em>Big City, Bright Lights</em> is on my TBR pile, calls Dangerfield <em>thoroughly charming</em>. Yeah - Dangerfield seems like the type of person you'd really enjoy knowing, doesn't it? I'm not sure on what planet someone would find Dangerfield charming, but it isn't on the planet I live on (or would want to live on).<br /><br />I don't know that I've run across another literary character that I so thoroughly detested. At first I debated who I disliked more - Sebastian Dangerfield or <a href="http://kristinsbookblog.blogspot.com/2008/04/rabbit-run.html">Rabbit Angstrom</a>. But Dangerfield wins hands down. At least <em>Rabbit, Run</em> wasn't supposed to be funny.<br /><br />I'll be frank here, as this is pretty much all that I have to say about this novel (which is a waste of paper, if you asked me). Sebastian Dangerfield is an Asshole - with a capital A. A story about an abusive guy who takes all his money (and his wife's money, and his girlfriend's money, and his friend's money, etc.) to get drunk and schmooze women, while his wife and infant daughter virtually starve in a house that is literally falling down is not funny. In fact, I find it incredibly disturbing that anyone would think this is funny, or that such a character is "charming." And if you are someone who thinks this character is charming, or sympathetic, or funny, I'll venture to guess that you're probably an Asshole - with a capital A - too. So there.<br /><br />Please don't construe this as a softening of any anti-Henry James-ness, but I think that I would rather reread <em>The Ambassadors</em> than have to encounter Sebastian Dangerfield ever again. The only use for my copy of this novel is to give it to Brendan to fart on. </p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com12