Reading The Flamethrowers -- I had resisted it for a good long while (too well-reviewed, too famous, too everywhere, it's obviously no good, even if it's any good I'll be much too jealous to appreciate it, this is why I don't read Franzen* but it's even worse when it's one of those under-thirty Wunderkatzen) (....okay it's worse, I looked her up and she's two years older than me) but someone gave me a copy free gratis, so what the hell. I've been reading a number of disconnected books about young women and Italy for some reason: Room with a View, Cartwheel, three increasingly-terrible true crime quickie jobs about Amanda Knox (going from Bad to Terrible to Very No Good, like the beds of the Three Bears), and now this.
-- I suppose I should reread Daisy Miller, except I was barely able to finish it in the first place, decades ago ('"My dear young friend," said Mrs. Walker, taking her hand pleadingly,
"don't walk off to the Pincio at this hour to meet a beautiful Italian"'). No, I guess the James that belongs in this messy bundle, not even gathered-together, but chaos seen as a pattern like fallen yarrow sticks, is Princess Casamassina, which I have around here somewhere. I remember Louise Bogan loved it. (Useless literary trivia I have stored in my brain instead of phone numbers: a moment from the fantastic Louise Bogan biography by Elizabeth Frank, probably long out of print by now, someone catching a glimpse at a New York City literary party of her sitting in Hart Crane's lap. I wish I had a photograph of that moment, I'd frame it. At least the people at the artsy New York parties in those days dressed better.) I'm reasonably sure there won't be any women falling in love with men who finger them through draped public art displays in a James novel. Reason enough to read him. Where's my goddamn copy, I guess I can download a free version from Gutenberg, oh ghod, the waking nightmare of Jamesian sentence structure....
I skimmed maybe a third of this, especially the early bits: the seminal (ho, ho) scene with Ronnie-the-asshole in the Chelsea Hotel (what, really?), the bits about the guys making tires oh God what is this John McPhee or something, the really bad bits about the 'motherfucking' fake revolutionaries (if you're going to rip off Stokely Carmichael's line do you have to give it to a white guy who's also in the art scene?). The vague, limp, artfully artless disaffectedness inherited from Tama Janowitz, back when Tama Janowitz was not a joke, a joke without a punchline. The old boredom of how do you portray the macho art scene without glorifying macho assholeness (short answer: you can't). The parts set in Italy were very good: the terrible not-mother-in-law, the grasping rich, the revolutionaries -- when Kushner wrote about the street protests the pages (virtual, on the Kindle, look it's metaphorical) came alive, you could smell the gasoline, the lemons, feel the heft of the passed guns.
-- And then it turned back into a book about what it's like to be a pretty young American girl all the men want to fuck and all the women hate because the men want to fuck them. What the hell. Can't we have a book about the woman artist for once? Diane Arbus or Lee Miller or Lee Krasner? They were all there too, you know, we were there, we were....Joyce Johnson even wrote a wonderful book about it, Minor Characters, that book in particular about the women Beats, but really the eternal female artist, the Woman Question: the missing in action, the abused and the disappeared, the lost and forgotten. Why am I reading about Ronnie-the-asshole and Sandro-the-asshole and Stanley-the-asshole? It's not even like they're good artists. Is that the point? What the point is, is now I have to read another three pages of Ronnie-the-asshole lecturing the Nameless Female Narrator (Daphne du Maurier wants her bit back) in order for Nameless to 'realize,' "I was the girl on layaway. And it wasn't Ronnie who'd put me on layaway. It was something I had done to myself."
And I'm just like, After all those pages about sexism and macho assholes and cheating men, the insight is, I have done it to myself? Oh, fuck you. Is this where feminism really and truly, after the skirted Suit Dresses with the little plaid bows of the eighties, after the Do Me Fuck Toys of the nineties, the Mommy Track quislings of the 00s, after-after-after, ends up, after all? In the slick women's magazine advice columns of I have done it to myself? Fuck, what about Italian feminism? Does Nameless have to fuck the distant cool male revolutionary? Can't she for once wind up in the kitchen, if not the barricades, instead of the bedroom, talking to the women, instead of fucking the men? What about Leopoldina Fortunati? -- Wait, is the revolutionary's girlfriend who hates Nameless seriously supposed to be directing Radio Alice? Is Radio Alice seriously only going to get half a sentence? Are you truly not going to include a reference to Carla Lonzi's glorious "Let's Spit on Hegel"? (Shit, now I want to write a novel about radical Italian feminists in the seventies just to include "Let's Spit on Hegel." Spitting on Hegel: best fucking idea ever.)
It's like Fear of Flying redux: Nameless films the revolution (At last! I thought. All the themes of the book are coming together!), but then loses her camera, fucks the male revolutionary, and then goes home, just like Isadora Wing ran off with one man only to return to another. But at least Fear of Flying had some feminism in it; it had to, it was written in 1973. -- Even Tama goddamn Janowitz didn't go that far. It was something I had done to myself. Christ almighty. Why not just go ahead and paste in a Ryan Gosling meme, while we're at it.
-- And yet, Kushner's prose style is skilfull enough, and she's good enough at making basically-nothing-happening seem interesting for long stretches that I didn't mind there wasn't much actual plot, more a coalescence of themes, a collection of images, word-collages: bikes, girls who ride bikes, the men who fuck girls who ride bikes, revolution, sexism, conceptual art, actual street art, poseurs, ignorance, naievete, pretentiousness. Innocence and experience. The workers and the profiteers, the artists lusting after fame, becoming part of the New York money machine. The true theme: exploitation. Nameless' narrative voice is indeed good, even though the dialogue is bad, stiltedly literary and impossibly long, "bookish" (the anti-me, Dwight Garner, of course fucking zeroes right in on that: "One of the best things about this book, though, is how much it gets out of Reno’s own head. The dialogue pops; many of the best observations are doled out to supporting characters." OH MY GOD. NO. If I just buy everything Dwight Garner hates sooner or later I'll probably find my new favourite book) (it's certainly not this one).
-- What kind of book is this? It's a book in which an anecdote about Georgia O'Keeffe (spotlit first by Joan Didion, so, not very original there) is told by the asshole male artist love interest without even naming her at all. That's what kind of book this is. It's like Radio Alice barely getting a mention, and going nameless, too, like the heroine. We have had enough of nameless diminished women.
Didion:
In Texas there was only the horizon she craved. In Texas she had her sister Claudia with her for a while, and in the late afternoons they would walk away from town and toward the horizon and watch the evening star come out. ‘That evening star fascinated me,’ she wrote. ‘… My sister had a gun, and as we walked she would throw bottles into the air and shoot them. I had nothing but to walk into nowhere and the wide sunset space with the star. Ten watercolors were made from that star.’ In a way one’s interest is compelled as much by the sister Claudia with the gun as by the painter Georgia with the star, but only the painter left us this shining record. Ten watercolors were made from that star.
Kushner:
She told Sandro she had gotten the idea for her most important cycle of
works when she was walking with her sister on an empty Texas plain one
summer evening, a single star in the sky above them. They were
teenagers. This was before cars, before World War One. “My sister had a
gun and kept throwing bottles up in the air and shooting them,” she had
told Sandro. “We walked under the big empty twilight and that star.”
There had to be an element of chance. But also precision. An occasional
dead-on hit. My sister had a gun.
(Dear Dwight Garner: this is the reason that you think the book sounds like Joan Didion. And why the hell am I still reading your reviews, anyway....)
*I don't read those terrible prize-baiting "Ten Under Forty" or "Twenty Under Thirty" or "Thirty Under Ten" collections on principle. The principle being, I want to live until I die of old age and not spontaneously combust in raging jealous despair. Look, I never said I was a good person.
Monday, October 14, 2013
Sunday, October 13, 2013
reading....Sunday, whoops
GOD, that last post was mopey. I am just exactly the kind of person you do not want at your social revolution ("No, no, I'm too depressed to help cast bullets, I'm just going to sit here in the corner and think about how awful everything is." "Ohhh-kay then....") (then again, there's that whacky evo-bio idea* that depression is actually some kind of survival skill, because if you're busy being flattened by feelings of horror and worthlessness in the back of the cave, you have much less chance of being speared by a mammoth tusk).
I was so bummed I just sat there and reread Going Postal, even though I'm worried about wearing it out for myself, like I did with Good Omens and Possession and the early Grafton books. On to Forster.
What did you just finish reading?
The new biography of Elliott Smith, Torment Saint, by William Todd Schultz (yes, this is the reason for all those Elliott Smith videos I posted recently). This was quite good -- very carefully researched, well-written, and its focus on Smith's songwriting genius pleased me; he was a great craftsman, not just a suffering soul (this was reminiscent of how Diane Wood Middlebrook wrote about Anne Sexton, in one of my favourite biographies ever). It's a bit like the Cobain Heavier than Heaven biography: obviously authorized, and heavily featuring the widow figure, but not any less good for all that. Pretty shattering in places, especially once addiction got its claws hooked into Elliott but good and his life was basically over, at least two years before his body died. What people don't understand about addiction is, it doesn't just kill you. It eats you alive, swallowing you whole, and then kills you. Very worthwhile.
I also finished a couple of Peter Lovesey books a dear friend gave me -- The Last Detective, The Summons, Bloodhounds, The Vault, and The House Sitter -- not realizing I read some out of sequence. Oh, dear. (Reading series books out of order is a real character flaw of mine -- I still haven't read the first couple of Discworld novels, and I started that series with Night Watch.) Those were pretty great -- I loved all the literary in-jokes, especially the cameo appearances of Jane Austen: not dippily reincarnated as a detective, or whatever, but present in the traces of her life in Bath. Mary Shelley appears, in the same way, too. Bloodhounds was probably my favourite, both for the locked-room setup and the mystery club members. I'm trying not to gulp them all down too fast, but it's hard not to!
What are you reading now?
A book that's been in my queue for ages -- Room with a View. I actually did read this, years and years ago (1986 probably) and I think I've reread it at least once since then, but bounced off it pretty heavily. It just seemed sort of shallow, and rejoicingly so. (The TV version sounds interesting, even if they did muff the ending....) First line, from Chapter I, "The Bertolini": "The Signora had no business to do it," said Miss Bartlett, "no business at all. She promised us south rooms with a view close together, instead of which here are north rooms, looking into a courtyard, and a long way apart. Oh, Lucy!" I got a Penguin edition this time -- sometimes reading critical introductions can help me see new aspects of a book I haven't liked much.
What do you expect to read next?
I really want to reread some Alice Munro (Nobel Prize FUCK YEAH), but I also want to wait to do that until my brain's less fogged by menstrual miasma (now there's a phrase) and all the GoodReads drama.
*As opposed to all the other evo-bio ideas.
I was so bummed I just sat there and reread Going Postal, even though I'm worried about wearing it out for myself, like I did with Good Omens and Possession and the early Grafton books. On to Forster.
What did you just finish reading?
The new biography of Elliott Smith, Torment Saint, by William Todd Schultz (yes, this is the reason for all those Elliott Smith videos I posted recently). This was quite good -- very carefully researched, well-written, and its focus on Smith's songwriting genius pleased me; he was a great craftsman, not just a suffering soul (this was reminiscent of how Diane Wood Middlebrook wrote about Anne Sexton, in one of my favourite biographies ever). It's a bit like the Cobain Heavier than Heaven biography: obviously authorized, and heavily featuring the widow figure, but not any less good for all that. Pretty shattering in places, especially once addiction got its claws hooked into Elliott but good and his life was basically over, at least two years before his body died. What people don't understand about addiction is, it doesn't just kill you. It eats you alive, swallowing you whole, and then kills you. Very worthwhile.
I also finished a couple of Peter Lovesey books a dear friend gave me -- The Last Detective, The Summons, Bloodhounds, The Vault, and The House Sitter -- not realizing I read some out of sequence. Oh, dear. (Reading series books out of order is a real character flaw of mine -- I still haven't read the first couple of Discworld novels, and I started that series with Night Watch.) Those were pretty great -- I loved all the literary in-jokes, especially the cameo appearances of Jane Austen: not dippily reincarnated as a detective, or whatever, but present in the traces of her life in Bath. Mary Shelley appears, in the same way, too. Bloodhounds was probably my favourite, both for the locked-room setup and the mystery club members. I'm trying not to gulp them all down too fast, but it's hard not to!
What are you reading now?
A book that's been in my queue for ages -- Room with a View. I actually did read this, years and years ago (1986 probably) and I think I've reread it at least once since then, but bounced off it pretty heavily. It just seemed sort of shallow, and rejoicingly so. (The TV version sounds interesting, even if they did muff the ending....) First line, from Chapter I, "The Bertolini": "The Signora had no business to do it," said Miss Bartlett, "no business at all. She promised us south rooms with a view close together, instead of which here are north rooms, looking into a courtyard, and a long way apart. Oh, Lucy!" I got a Penguin edition this time -- sometimes reading critical introductions can help me see new aspects of a book I haven't liked much.
What do you expect to read next?
I really want to reread some Alice Munro (Nobel Prize FUCK YEAH), but I also want to wait to do that until my brain's less fogged by menstrual miasma (now there's a phrase) and all the GoodReads drama.
*As opposed to all the other evo-bio ideas.
Labels:
reading wednesday,
readsday
Hamlet - The Text Adventure (Robin Johnson)
(This cracks me up because it's the same blocky illustrations in the Complete Shakespeare I grew up on. ) Go on! Play! You know you want to....
It's so unfair! You're in trouble again, just because you called your uncle - or rather, your new stepfather, Claudius - a usurping git. It's true, though. Your real dad was SO much better than that guy. Too bad he was found mysteriously dead in the orchard a couple of weeks back. Anyway, your mother (who was, incidentally, looking quite something today in a sparse leather number, er...) sent you to your room, and here you are.
Bedroom
You are in your luxurious palatial boudoir, all of ten feet square. There is a four-poster bed, and not much else. A portrait hangs on the wall.
An exit leads north.
goodbye
I think this is the first time in....I don't know how long. Years?....that I haven't entered what I'm currently reading into that little box on the GR homepage. It feels very....odd. Almost as if reading were this solitary activity that you performed BY YOURSELF, in an unwholesome manner, without any social networking AT ALL! UNPOSSIBLE.
Yeah, anyway.
I just can't deal with GoodReads right now....everyone's in the last stages of Grief and Rage and my feed is filled with those Hydra reviews and the sense of loss is overwhelming. People are deleting their reviews, deleting their accounts, going for the 'nuclear option' where even your comments are zapped, disappearing. I doubt I'll do that myself because I've zapped social network accounts before and the sense of having been eaten away, of my virtual self (is there such a thing?) suddenly being patchy and full of holes, like a bad special effect in a made-for-cable scifi TV movie, is terrible. I have to avoid really upsetting stuff, because for me it can be a trigger (that overused word, oh dear) that sets off a long-term depression that lasts days, weeks, months. I'm not exaggerating. (That's one reason I read so much. Reality is for people who can't handle books! Dickens, take me AWAAAYYY....) So I'll be there, sort of, shaking my gory locks at Otis and co, I suppose.
But I'll be damned if I'm generating any more profitable content for them over there: writing reviews, ranking books, shelving books, updating their (HORRIBLY munged) database, writing comments. No more.
This depressive little rant is because I was thinking of a review Elizabeth had written of Room with a View -- I had enjoyed the movie, of course, hadn't read the book before then (I think I read Maurice only after seeing that movie, too. And Passage to India. Mea culpa, Forster) but I didn't connect with it -- it seemed cute but shallow. I tried rereading it a few times, but never got anywhere. (Now if you want to talk about Howards End, that's my jam....) But this review was wonderful - passionate, engaged, one of those raves by a friend that make you really wonder Yeah, why didn't I see that in this book, anyway? I treasure those kinds of moments -- I love it when people give me new perspectives on books, movies, news events, whatever. It's one of the best feelings there is, suddenly seeing from another viewpoint. I've remembered that review for months, perhaps years (gee, that doesn't sound creepy).
Well, Elizabeth has just written her last review for GoodReads. She explained why. It's typically passionate yet analytical, well-written, carefully thought out but full of feeling. So you can understand why, after reading it, I felt really FUCKING DEPRESSED. (This is why I'm not doing a great job writing this post. When I get depressed, I shut down, I slip away, I become nonverbal. It's pretty horrifying. It feels like becoming a ghost.)
So, I'll be rereading Room with a View, or trying to really read it for the first time, but I won't be tracking my progress there. I won't be writing about my reading for Elizabeth, or the other friends who I love talking about books with, and she won't be writing about her own reading there either. We'll probably connect elsewhere (right now everyone is fleeing to Booklikes, as apparently LibraryThing shit the nest when people fled there after news of the Amazon buyout broke). But....it won't be the same, at all.
Ave atque vale, Elizabeth, and all my other virtual bookish friends who are so real. Goodbye, GoodReads.
Yeah, anyway.
I just can't deal with GoodReads right now....everyone's in the last stages of Grief and Rage and my feed is filled with those Hydra reviews and the sense of loss is overwhelming. People are deleting their reviews, deleting their accounts, going for the 'nuclear option' where even your comments are zapped, disappearing. I doubt I'll do that myself because I've zapped social network accounts before and the sense of having been eaten away, of my virtual self (is there such a thing?) suddenly being patchy and full of holes, like a bad special effect in a made-for-cable scifi TV movie, is terrible. I have to avoid really upsetting stuff, because for me it can be a trigger (that overused word, oh dear) that sets off a long-term depression that lasts days, weeks, months. I'm not exaggerating. (That's one reason I read so much. Reality is for people who can't handle books! Dickens, take me AWAAAYYY....) So I'll be there, sort of, shaking my gory locks at Otis and co, I suppose.
But I'll be damned if I'm generating any more profitable content for them over there: writing reviews, ranking books, shelving books, updating their (HORRIBLY munged) database, writing comments. No more.
This depressive little rant is because I was thinking of a review Elizabeth had written of Room with a View -- I had enjoyed the movie, of course, hadn't read the book before then (I think I read Maurice only after seeing that movie, too. And Passage to India. Mea culpa, Forster) but I didn't connect with it -- it seemed cute but shallow. I tried rereading it a few times, but never got anywhere. (Now if you want to talk about Howards End, that's my jam....) But this review was wonderful - passionate, engaged, one of those raves by a friend that make you really wonder Yeah, why didn't I see that in this book, anyway? I treasure those kinds of moments -- I love it when people give me new perspectives on books, movies, news events, whatever. It's one of the best feelings there is, suddenly seeing from another viewpoint. I've remembered that review for months, perhaps years (gee, that doesn't sound creepy).
Well, Elizabeth has just written her last review for GoodReads. She explained why. It's typically passionate yet analytical, well-written, carefully thought out but full of feeling. So you can understand why, after reading it, I felt really FUCKING DEPRESSED. (This is why I'm not doing a great job writing this post. When I get depressed, I shut down, I slip away, I become nonverbal. It's pretty horrifying. It feels like becoming a ghost.)
So, I'll be rereading Room with a View, or trying to really read it for the first time, but I won't be tracking my progress there. I won't be writing about my reading for Elizabeth, or the other friends who I love talking about books with, and she won't be writing about her own reading there either. We'll probably connect elsewhere (right now everyone is fleeing to Booklikes, as apparently LibraryThing shit the nest when people fled there after news of the Amazon buyout broke). But....it won't be the same, at all.
Ave atque vale, Elizabeth, and all my other virtual bookish friends who are so real. Goodbye, GoodReads.
Saturday, October 12, 2013
linkses
Trying to start dropping links here, with commentary, that would otherwise go on Twitter or Tumblr or GoodReads without. Trying to quit all those things.
Daniel Mendelsohn (I have such a crush on him) on translation: 'When David R. Slavitt chose to pepper his 1997 translation of this titanic masterpiece with phrases like “learning curve,” “stress-related” and “Watch what you say, mister,” he was not only cheapening the diction but hamstringing the play’s larger meanings. Clytemnestra is not Joan Crawford.' (My mind went to a scary place there.) (Now could Agamemnon, drama queen extraordinaire, be Joan Crawford? Possibly.)
The Atlantic rehashes a 2001 interview with Alice Munro, 2013 Nobel winner (yay!), in which she sounds a lot like Raymond Carver in "Fires":
So why do I like to write short stories? Well, I certainly didn't intend to. I was going to write a novel. And still! I still come up with ideas for novels. And I even start novels. But something happens to them. They break up. I look at what I really want to do with the material, and it never turns out to be a novel. But when I was younger, it was simply a matter of expediency. I had small children, I didn't have any help. Some of this was before the days of automatic washing machines, if you can actually believe it. There was no way I could get that kind of time. I couldn't look ahead and say, this is going to take me a year, because I thought every moment something might happen that would take all time away from me. So I wrote in bits and pieces with a limited time expectation. Perhaps I got used to thinking of my material in terms of things that worked that way. And then when I got a little more time, I started writing these odder stories, which branch out a lot. But I still didn't write a novel, in spite of good intentions.
Also yay! -- the 18th annual Seattle Lesbian & Gay Film festival, featuring a movie about one of my very favourite poets, Elizabeth Bishop. There's also a documentary about Divine, and an adaptation of Michelle Tea's memoir Valencia.
"I heard back from a law firm whose name seemed to come straight out of a Shel Silverstein poem: Solheim, Billing, and Grimmer": it sounds like Shel Silverstein's estate could teach Sylvia Plath's heirs lessons. More seriously, this is another demonstration of the clash between property rights and scholarship. He mentions this Atlantic article on how copyright is making mid-twentieth-century books disappear.
Malcolm Gladwell sucks. Yes, yes he does. I enjoyed a lot of his early New Yorker articles, but oh my GOD, enough with the "You may think X is X. But actually, it's Y!" pop books.
Why is Michiko Kakutani a top literary critic again? Is she better or worse than Dwight Garner? Now there's a real tossup.
Remember Helvetica, one of the best docs ever? The guy who made it is doing a Kickstarter to publish the complete transcripts of his "design trilogy." That sounds pretty damn awesome to me.
Someone's rewritten Hamlet as a Choose Your Own Adventure book! I used to love those things as a kid. (True to my obsessive nature, I would read them all the way through to figure out how they were structured.) I doubt it's as completely awesome as Robin Johnson's wonderful Hamlet text adventure, tho. (I also have to love Johnson's background image on his Twitter.)
William Todd Schultz on "Why We Can't Get Elliott Smith Out of Our Heads": "He did it all. There were no limits. That's what great artistic striving is: oceanic." His biography of Elliott, Torment Saint, is very good.
And last, some Rob Brezsny: SCORPIO (Oct 23–Nov 21): Two years ago, a British man named Sean Murphy decided he had suffered enough from the painful wart on his middle finger. So he drank a few beers to steel his nerves and tried to blast the offending blemish off with a gun. The operation was a success in the sense that he got rid of the wart. It was less than a total victory, though, because he also annihilated most of his finger. May I suggest that you not follow Murphy's lead, Scorpio? Now is a good time to part ways with a hurtful burden, but I'm sure you can do it without causing a lot of collateral damage.
.....oh, FUCK YOU, Rob, LET'S SEE YOU DISENGAGE IF IT'S SO DAMN EASY. ahem.
Daniel Mendelsohn (I have such a crush on him) on translation: 'When David R. Slavitt chose to pepper his 1997 translation of this titanic masterpiece with phrases like “learning curve,” “stress-related” and “Watch what you say, mister,” he was not only cheapening the diction but hamstringing the play’s larger meanings. Clytemnestra is not Joan Crawford.' (My mind went to a scary place there.) (Now could Agamemnon, drama queen extraordinaire, be Joan Crawford? Possibly.)
The Atlantic rehashes a 2001 interview with Alice Munro, 2013 Nobel winner (yay!), in which she sounds a lot like Raymond Carver in "Fires":
So why do I like to write short stories? Well, I certainly didn't intend to. I was going to write a novel. And still! I still come up with ideas for novels. And I even start novels. But something happens to them. They break up. I look at what I really want to do with the material, and it never turns out to be a novel. But when I was younger, it was simply a matter of expediency. I had small children, I didn't have any help. Some of this was before the days of automatic washing machines, if you can actually believe it. There was no way I could get that kind of time. I couldn't look ahead and say, this is going to take me a year, because I thought every moment something might happen that would take all time away from me. So I wrote in bits and pieces with a limited time expectation. Perhaps I got used to thinking of my material in terms of things that worked that way. And then when I got a little more time, I started writing these odder stories, which branch out a lot. But I still didn't write a novel, in spite of good intentions.
Also yay! -- the 18th annual Seattle Lesbian & Gay Film festival, featuring a movie about one of my very favourite poets, Elizabeth Bishop. There's also a documentary about Divine, and an adaptation of Michelle Tea's memoir Valencia.
"I heard back from a law firm whose name seemed to come straight out of a Shel Silverstein poem: Solheim, Billing, and Grimmer": it sounds like Shel Silverstein's estate could teach Sylvia Plath's heirs lessons. More seriously, this is another demonstration of the clash between property rights and scholarship. He mentions this Atlantic article on how copyright is making mid-twentieth-century books disappear.
Malcolm Gladwell sucks. Yes, yes he does. I enjoyed a lot of his early New Yorker articles, but oh my GOD, enough with the "You may think X is X. But actually, it's Y!" pop books.
Why is Michiko Kakutani a top literary critic again? Is she better or worse than Dwight Garner? Now there's a real tossup.
Remember Helvetica, one of the best docs ever? The guy who made it is doing a Kickstarter to publish the complete transcripts of his "design trilogy." That sounds pretty damn awesome to me.
Someone's rewritten Hamlet as a Choose Your Own Adventure book! I used to love those things as a kid. (True to my obsessive nature, I would read them all the way through to figure out how they were structured.) I doubt it's as completely awesome as Robin Johnson's wonderful Hamlet text adventure, tho. (I also have to love Johnson's background image on his Twitter.)
William Todd Schultz on "Why We Can't Get Elliott Smith Out of Our Heads": "He did it all. There were no limits. That's what great artistic striving is: oceanic." His biography of Elliott, Torment Saint, is very good.
And last, some Rob Brezsny: SCORPIO (Oct 23–Nov 21): Two years ago, a British man named Sean Murphy decided he had suffered enough from the painful wart on his middle finger. So he drank a few beers to steel his nerves and tried to blast the offending blemish off with a gun. The operation was a success in the sense that he got rid of the wart. It was less than a total victory, though, because he also annihilated most of his finger. May I suggest that you not follow Murphy's lead, Scorpio? Now is a good time to part ways with a hurtful burden, but I'm sure you can do it without causing a lot of collateral damage.
.....oh, FUCK YOU, Rob, LET'S SEE YOU DISENGAGE IF IT'S SO DAMN EASY. ahem.
Labels:
links
Friday, October 11, 2013
Thursday, October 10, 2013
Wednesday, October 9, 2013
blood trail
In the Odyssey, Odysseus, for all his adventures and far-flung wandering, is always urged to ‘remember the return’. The journey is about coming home. When he reaches Ithaca the place is in uproar with unruly suitors for his hard-pressed wife. Two things happen: his dog scents him, and his wife recognises him by a scar on his thigh. She feels the wound.
There are so many wound stories: Chiron, the centaur, half-man, half-horse, is shot by a poisoned arrow tipped in the Hydra’s blood, and because he is immortal and cannot die, he must live forever in agony. But he uses the pain of the wound to heal others. The wound becomes its own salve.
Prometheus, fire-stealer from the gods, is punished with a daily wound: each morning an eagle perches on his hip and rips out his liver; each night the wound heals, only to be scored open the next day. I think of him, burned dark in the sun where he is chained to the Caucasian mountains, the skin on his stomach as soft and pale as a little child’s.
The doubting disciple Thomas must put his hand into the spear-wound in Jesus’ side, before he can accept that Jesus is who he says he is.
Gulliver, finishing his travels, is wounded by an arrow in the back of the knee as he leaves the country of the Houyhnhnms — the gentle and intelligent horses, far superior to humankind. On his return home Gulliver prefers to live in his own stables, and the wound behind his knee never heals. It is the reminder of another life.
One of the most mysterious wounds is the story of the Fisher King. The King is the keeper of the Grail, and is sustained by it, but he has a wound that will not heal, and until it does heal, the kingdom cannot be united. Eventually Galahad comes and lays hands on the King. In other versions it is Perceval.
The wound is symbolic and cannot be reduced to interpretation. But wounding seems to be a clue or a key to being human. There is value here as well as agony.
When we notice in the stories is the nearness of the wound to the gift: the one who is wounded is marked out — literally and symbolically — by the wound. The wound is a sign of difference. Even Harry Potter has a scar.
Freud colonised the Oedipus myth and renamed it as the son who kills the father and desires the mother. But Oedipus is an adoption story and wound story too. Oedipus has his ankles pierced together by his mother Jocasta before she abandons him, so that he cannot crawl away. He is rescued, and returns to kill his father and marry his mother, unrecognised by anyone except the blind prophet Tiresias — a case of one wound recognising another.
You cannot disown what is yours. Flung out, there is always there return, the reckoning, the revenge, perhaps, the reconciliation.
There is always the return. And the wound will take you there. It is a blood trail.
-- Jeanette Winterson, Why Be Happy When You Could Be Normal?
There are so many wound stories: Chiron, the centaur, half-man, half-horse, is shot by a poisoned arrow tipped in the Hydra’s blood, and because he is immortal and cannot die, he must live forever in agony. But he uses the pain of the wound to heal others. The wound becomes its own salve.
Prometheus, fire-stealer from the gods, is punished with a daily wound: each morning an eagle perches on his hip and rips out his liver; each night the wound heals, only to be scored open the next day. I think of him, burned dark in the sun where he is chained to the Caucasian mountains, the skin on his stomach as soft and pale as a little child’s.
The doubting disciple Thomas must put his hand into the spear-wound in Jesus’ side, before he can accept that Jesus is who he says he is.
Gulliver, finishing his travels, is wounded by an arrow in the back of the knee as he leaves the country of the Houyhnhnms — the gentle and intelligent horses, far superior to humankind. On his return home Gulliver prefers to live in his own stables, and the wound behind his knee never heals. It is the reminder of another life.
One of the most mysterious wounds is the story of the Fisher King. The King is the keeper of the Grail, and is sustained by it, but he has a wound that will not heal, and until it does heal, the kingdom cannot be united. Eventually Galahad comes and lays hands on the King. In other versions it is Perceval.
The wound is symbolic and cannot be reduced to interpretation. But wounding seems to be a clue or a key to being human. There is value here as well as agony.
When we notice in the stories is the nearness of the wound to the gift: the one who is wounded is marked out — literally and symbolically — by the wound. The wound is a sign of difference. Even Harry Potter has a scar.
Freud colonised the Oedipus myth and renamed it as the son who kills the father and desires the mother. But Oedipus is an adoption story and wound story too. Oedipus has his ankles pierced together by his mother Jocasta before she abandons him, so that he cannot crawl away. He is rescued, and returns to kill his father and marry his mother, unrecognised by anyone except the blind prophet Tiresias — a case of one wound recognising another.
You cannot disown what is yours. Flung out, there is always there return, the reckoning, the revenge, perhaps, the reconciliation.
There is always the return. And the wound will take you there. It is a blood trail.
-- Jeanette Winterson, Why Be Happy When You Could Be Normal?
Labels:
jeanette winterson,
quotes
Monday, October 7, 2013
Sunday, October 6, 2013
Saturday, October 5, 2013
books read in October 2013
Fiction is in red.
170. Last Call: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition, Daniel Okrent
171. The Story of Charlotte's Web: E.B. White's Eccentric Life in Nature and the Birth of an American Classic, Michael Sims
172. The Last Detective, Peter Lovesey
173. The Summons, Peter Lovesey
174. Bloodhounds, Peter Lovesey
175. Torment Saint: The Life of Elliott Smith, William Todd Schultz
176. Room with a View, E.M. Forster
177. The Flamethrowers, Rachel Kushner
178. The Fatal Gift of Beauty: The Trials of Amanda Knox, Nina Burleigh
179. Cartwheel, Jennifer duBois
180. The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America, George Packer
181. Interesting Times: Writings from a Turbulent Decade, George Packer
182. Shadows, Robin McKinley
183. Hyperbole and a Half: Unfortunate Situations, Flawed Coping Mechanisms, Mayhem, and Other Things That Happened, Allie Brosh (not as good as the website)
184. Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America, Rick Perlstein
185. The Poe Shadow, Matthew Pearl
186. The Murders in the Rue Morgue: The Dupin Tales, Edgar Allan Poe (ed. Matthew Pearl)
187. In a Strange City, Laura Lippman
188. Poe: A Life Cut Short, Peter Ackroyd
2013 booklist
170. Last Call: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition, Daniel Okrent
171. The Story of Charlotte's Web: E.B. White's Eccentric Life in Nature and the Birth of an American Classic, Michael Sims
172. The Last Detective, Peter Lovesey
173. The Summons, Peter Lovesey
174. Bloodhounds, Peter Lovesey
175. Torment Saint: The Life of Elliott Smith, William Todd Schultz
176. Room with a View, E.M. Forster
177. The Flamethrowers, Rachel Kushner
178. The Fatal Gift of Beauty: The Trials of Amanda Knox, Nina Burleigh
179. Cartwheel, Jennifer duBois
180. The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America, George Packer
181. Interesting Times: Writings from a Turbulent Decade, George Packer
182. Shadows, Robin McKinley
183. Hyperbole and a Half: Unfortunate Situations, Flawed Coping Mechanisms, Mayhem, and Other Things That Happened, Allie Brosh (not as good as the website)
184. Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America, Rick Perlstein
185. The Poe Shadow, Matthew Pearl
186. The Murders in the Rue Morgue: The Dupin Tales, Edgar Allan Poe (ed. Matthew Pearl)
187. In a Strange City, Laura Lippman
188. Poe: A Life Cut Short, Peter Ackroyd
2013 booklist
Labels:
2013 books read,
books,
reading
Friday, October 4, 2013
Reading.....Friday (don't judge)
It's that wonderful time of the month when I swoon about like a Victorian maiden and the bathroom looks like the murder set in a C.S.I. teaser. And if you say women can't be President because of PMS I'll bite your nuts off. Don't expect profundity here.
What did you just finish reading?
A.S. Byatt's The Children's Book, which was....no go. So, so no go. Too many characters, their relationships to each other were much too tangled (yes I know this was deliberate, it didn't work anyway), way too much history crammed into too few pages -- the book would have worked if it had been either 200 pages shorter or 200 pages longer, or two books (or....a quartet). The story really ends with Tom in 1908, and there are several big timejumps after that and then WWI begins and ends and is really glossed over. I found the final post-war epilogue, with the battered survivors eating dumpling soup, rather moving, except it was too little real emotion much too late. I was also ENRAGED by Tom's fate, and Byatt's horrible general theme that Writing is Bad for Children And Other Living Things (especially when done by mothers) is front and center.
After I forced myself through that I drifted around in a haze of Book Flu, which is when I have eight thousand eight hundred books in this apartment (and a couple thousand more on the ereader) and can't decide what to read. I hate Book Flu, it drives me nuts. It is usually only cured by snatching up a book at random and just starting it. Which I did. (After rereading some Pratchett Watch novels: Guards, Men At Arms, Feet of Clay.)
What are you reading now?
Last Call: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition, by Daniel Okrent bobbed to the top of the Kindle. This is definitely pop history: very slangy, lots of modern references ("Nearly ninety years before french fries became freedom fries...."), a bit glib and superficial. But for all that, it goes down easy, and there's a lot of colourful historical detail ("We need more colourful historical detail in this chapter, Daniel, can't you mention Billy Sunday again?"). The racist policies that partly drove Prohibition (both against black men and Germans) make me feel a bit sick. Gee, I don't remember any of that being mentioned in the page-and-a-half devoted to the Eighteenth Amendment in my eighth-grade history textbook. I wonder why. Sometimes Okrent is like that painfully wannabe-hip high school teacher who tried too hard to make history Engaging and Cool, but the book is still pretty good.
What do you expect to read next?
I was thinking of trying Room with a View again -- it's pretty light, but deeper underneath, and I've read it two or three times but think I never really did it justice. Possibly some mysteries. Nothing requiring much brainwork, probably.
What did you just finish reading?
A.S. Byatt's The Children's Book, which was....no go. So, so no go. Too many characters, their relationships to each other were much too tangled (yes I know this was deliberate, it didn't work anyway), way too much history crammed into too few pages -- the book would have worked if it had been either 200 pages shorter or 200 pages longer, or two books (or....a quartet). The story really ends with Tom in 1908, and there are several big timejumps after that and then WWI begins and ends and is really glossed over. I found the final post-war epilogue, with the battered survivors eating dumpling soup, rather moving, except it was too little real emotion much too late. I was also ENRAGED by Tom's fate, and Byatt's horrible general theme that Writing is Bad for Children And Other Living Things (especially when done by mothers) is front and center.
After I forced myself through that I drifted around in a haze of Book Flu, which is when I have eight thousand eight hundred books in this apartment (and a couple thousand more on the ereader) and can't decide what to read. I hate Book Flu, it drives me nuts. It is usually only cured by snatching up a book at random and just starting it. Which I did. (After rereading some Pratchett Watch novels: Guards, Men At Arms, Feet of Clay.)
What are you reading now?
Last Call: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition, by Daniel Okrent bobbed to the top of the Kindle. This is definitely pop history: very slangy, lots of modern references ("Nearly ninety years before french fries became freedom fries...."), a bit glib and superficial. But for all that, it goes down easy, and there's a lot of colourful historical detail ("We need more colourful historical detail in this chapter, Daniel, can't you mention Billy Sunday again?"). The racist policies that partly drove Prohibition (both against black men and Germans) make me feel a bit sick. Gee, I don't remember any of that being mentioned in the page-and-a-half devoted to the Eighteenth Amendment in my eighth-grade history textbook. I wonder why. Sometimes Okrent is like that painfully wannabe-hip high school teacher who tried too hard to make history Engaging and Cool, but the book is still pretty good.
What do you expect to read next?
I was thinking of trying Room with a View again -- it's pretty light, but deeper underneath, and I've read it two or three times but think I never really did it justice. Possibly some mysteries. Nothing requiring much brainwork, probably.
Labels:
reading wednesday,
readsday
Thursday, October 3, 2013
two quotes
'Do you remember the lake?' she said, in an abrupt voice, under the
pressure of an emotion which caught her heart, made the muscles of her
throat stiff, and contracted her lips in a spasm as she said 'lake.' For
she was a child, throwing bread to the ducks, between her parents, and
at the same time a grown woman coming to her parents who stood by the
lake, holding her life in her arms which, as she neared them...
- Virginia Woolf, Mrs Dalloway
Literature is a source of pleasure...it is one of the rare inexhaustible joys in life, but it's not only that. It must not be dissociated from reality. Everything is there. That is why I never use the word fiction. Every subtlety in life is material for a book....Have you noticed...that I'm talking about novels? Novels don't contain only exceptional situations, life or death choices, or major ordeals; there are also everyday difficulties, temptations, ordinary disappointments; and, in response, every human attitude, every type of behavior, from the finest to the most wretched. There are books where, as you read, you wonder: What would I have done? It's a question you have to ask yourself. Listen carefully: it is a way to learn to live. There are grown-ups who will say no, literature is not life, that novels teach you nothing. They are wrong. Literature informs, instructs, it prepares you for life.
- Laurence Cossé, A Novel Bookstore (tr. Alison Anderson)
- Virginia Woolf, Mrs Dalloway
Literature is a source of pleasure...it is one of the rare inexhaustible joys in life, but it's not only that. It must not be dissociated from reality. Everything is there. That is why I never use the word fiction. Every subtlety in life is material for a book....Have you noticed...that I'm talking about novels? Novels don't contain only exceptional situations, life or death choices, or major ordeals; there are also everyday difficulties, temptations, ordinary disappointments; and, in response, every human attitude, every type of behavior, from the finest to the most wretched. There are books where, as you read, you wonder: What would I have done? It's a question you have to ask yourself. Listen carefully: it is a way to learn to live. There are grown-ups who will say no, literature is not life, that novels teach you nothing. They are wrong. Literature informs, instructs, it prepares you for life.
- Laurence Cossé, A Novel Bookstore (tr. Alison Anderson)
Wednesday, October 2, 2013
my heart is a cold acre
(why this didn't get famous instead of One Crowded Whatever I'll never know. People like mediocrity I guess)
four books a year? no wonder the teabaggers got into power
Kobo has chased the “heavy reader” segment in particular. Book buying resembles many consumer markets, where the 80/20 rule operates: 20% of the customers buy 80% of the product. So by Kobo targeting heavy users, they can efficiently sell a larger volume. It’s difficult to get comparable figures internationally, but according to management consultant (and my colleague) Brian O’Leary, the average U.S. consumer buys about 4 books per year, and the frequent buyer purchases 12 to 45 books per year. Humphrey reports that his readers via a Kobo device buy on average four books per month, or 48 per year.
- Forbes
.....man, I can remember when I used to buy 50 books a month.
- Forbes
.....man, I can remember when I used to buy 50 books a month.
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
Sunday, September 29, 2013
'the unsaid'
It was wonderful and then it was horrible and now it is like the rest of
my sometimes fraught existence an experience I will eventually circle
around and get to know and understand only through the documentation. I
am still recovering from everything. I am still writing, always writing,
never writing, trying to write. I am still circling the wound.
- Kate Zambreno
- Kate Zambreno
Labels:
kate zambreno,
women,
women writers,
writing
Saturday, September 28, 2013
I'm in love with Holger Syme
The exact opposite of Gilmour’s point is true: good teaching requires
empathy — an effort to understand things, ideas, and people totally
unlike you. Some of those people are your students. Some of those things
are of the past. Some of those ideas are the ideas of authors from
different cultures than yours, and yes, shockingly, even of a different
gender. Engaging with those people, things, and ideas is not just what
research means, and why research is necessary, it’s what reading is.
Gilmour’s account of his teaching, by contrast, is strikingly devoid of empathy. Chinese authors? Can’t love them. Queer authors? Can’t love them. (But Marcel….) Female authors? Can’t love them. White men who are like me or who I want to be? Love those. Sympathy is what this view of things is all about: one big group hug among guys across the twentieth century, all guys like Gilmour. What’s genuinely hilarious, rather than merely depressing, is the predictable homophobia that goes hand in hand with this chest-thumpy, circle-jerky, narcissistic literary self-love-fest: Gilmour loves Chekhov so much, he’d marry him tomorrow if only they weren’t both so amazingly straight. Though “literary” seems almost incidental. None of what makes Chekhov a cool guy, after all, has anything to do with the plays or short stories he wrote. It’s all about his “personality.” His grace. His generosity. And his “bellicose laugh.”
....Most crucially, David Gilmour doesn’t seem to grasp why anyone should read literature at all. We can argue about whether Hamlet is right or not when he claims that art holds a mirror up to nature. But let’s just say he is. Here’s what Hamlet doesn’t say: that art is a mirror you choose to pick up to see yourself. Art shows you a mirror. That thing you see in there isn’t supposed to be your pre-conceived self-image. It’s something strange, and alien, and scary, or ridiculous, or dull. But it’s something that demands engagement. And sometimes, it becomes something that you realize is in fact you — but that’s not meant to be a happy realization. If the thing you see when you look into a book looks exactly like what you think you look like, you’re doing it wrong.
- The Loneliness of the Old White Male
Gilmour’s account of his teaching, by contrast, is strikingly devoid of empathy. Chinese authors? Can’t love them. Queer authors? Can’t love them. (But Marcel….) Female authors? Can’t love them. White men who are like me or who I want to be? Love those. Sympathy is what this view of things is all about: one big group hug among guys across the twentieth century, all guys like Gilmour. What’s genuinely hilarious, rather than merely depressing, is the predictable homophobia that goes hand in hand with this chest-thumpy, circle-jerky, narcissistic literary self-love-fest: Gilmour loves Chekhov so much, he’d marry him tomorrow if only they weren’t both so amazingly straight. Though “literary” seems almost incidental. None of what makes Chekhov a cool guy, after all, has anything to do with the plays or short stories he wrote. It’s all about his “personality.” His grace. His generosity. And his “bellicose laugh.”
....Most crucially, David Gilmour doesn’t seem to grasp why anyone should read literature at all. We can argue about whether Hamlet is right or not when he claims that art holds a mirror up to nature. But let’s just say he is. Here’s what Hamlet doesn’t say: that art is a mirror you choose to pick up to see yourself. Art shows you a mirror. That thing you see in there isn’t supposed to be your pre-conceived self-image. It’s something strange, and alien, and scary, or ridiculous, or dull. But it’s something that demands engagement. And sometimes, it becomes something that you realize is in fact you — but that’s not meant to be a happy realization. If the thing you see when you look into a book looks exactly like what you think you look like, you’re doing it wrong.
- The Loneliness of the Old White Male
Labels:
david gilmour,
holger syme,
sexism
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)







