Sarah's comments (member since Sep 06, 2007)

Sarah's comments from the Constant Reader group.

Kenneth, isn't it a shame to be something like the 5th largest city in the nation and have such a dearth of independent bookstores? I don't know where you are in the area, or what bookstore you're referencing, but Changing Hands in Tempe is a fabulous independent. It does happen to be close to me, but I would frequent it if it were a little further, too.

Interesting discussion regarding internal motives. I'm a psychologist, so one might say I spend my days trying to help people uncover their motives to deepen their understanding of themselves, thereby helping them to move their lives in different directions (well, that's one version of what I do. :) )

My take on it is that even when motives may not appear "rational," it doesn't follow that they are not accessible. My experience with human nature is that we act/react in ways that may not appear rational to an outsider, but that are perfectly rational given our past and internal experience. I also believe that many times (perhaps always? I'd have to pick a different profession if that were true!), we may THINK we know our motives (even if not rational) but be truly blinded to the REAL motives. Self-awareness is a slippery concept.

I wonder what makes people suddenly become allergic to foods later in life? That is puzzling.

I have no food allergies (thankfully), but I know someone who is allergic to COOKED seafood but not to RAW. I thought that was intriguing; isn't it usually the opposite?

River of Doubt, the story of Roosevelt's exploration of the Amazon

Life and Death in Shanghai by Nien Cheng; account of her imprisonment during the Cultural Revolution

I loved all the Ruth Reichls.

Joe, I'm not sure where you're getting the TV reference. I don't even watch TV. We did get off onto a mystery thread, albeit "literary" mystery writers, but other than the fact that one of the writers we were discussing also wrote a TV series, we aren't talking about TV writers.

I had to go back and reread these posts; there were so many I wanted to respond to...Ruth, I loved Brokeback Mountain (haven't yet seen the movie, but want to) and the other stories in that book.

(Apologies if I've already written this; it feels familiar. Another thread, perhaps?)

I got about halfway through Infinite Jest last year, and was starting to understand why people felt the way they did about DFW. I think the book of essays is called Consider the Lobster, and it's on my shelf. It came highly recommended.

Gabrielle, I loved C&P, too.

I remembered another "loather:" Vanity Fair.

That's interesting, El. I read TSN lo these many years ago and remember loving it. I wish I could remember enough about it to understand the connections you're making between Quoyle and ACOD.

I tried to read one other of Proulx's, That Old Ace in the Hole, but couldn't get into it. I loved her short stories, though.

I tried ACOD twice and didn't care for it. One of the reasons was, indeed, the character. I felt nothing, not even loathing, for him.

El, here's a couple that just popped into my head while writing the last post. I'll think on it some more tonight, scanning my shelves (I need the visual prompt!).

Finn (from Finn, by Jon Clinch)
Serena (from Serena, by Ron Rash)
Pinkie Brown (from Brighton Rock, by Graham Greene)
Alec d'Urberville (from Tess of the d'Urbervilles, Hardy)
Barbara Covett (Notes on a Scandal, by Zoe Heller)

I know there are more...but these are good examples of characters I loathed in books I loved.

So true, A.J. However, I would use a different word than "like" when referring to a character. I have been fascinated with, intrigued by, horrified by, and connected to scores of characters that I have not "liked." What turns me off is if I can't buy the character, he/she is flat (unless on purpose), or just so poorly developed that there is only air there when I try to reach out my hand. I have a long list of novels with characters I've loathed for their particular 'characteristics', but loved the book itself.

Thanks, Gail. I had not heard the Lovesy recommendation. I put all of them on my TBR list.

Lynn, sorry to incorrectly refer to you--I have been reading so many back threads that I have lost track of who is talking about which books. I did like him, though, so I would tentatively recommend him to YOU. :)

Thanks, Larry and Gail, for the new mystery author recommendations. Gail, can you spout off a couple of the Barnards that you think are his better books?

Larry, I have been searching for the first Pelecanos book. The library is out, so I picked up Shoedog instead, which was the earliest available. I'm looking forward to reading more of him.

To whomever recommended Robert Crais (Lynn?)-- I read about half of his first book in the bookstore Friday night. I liked it; Elvis's way of speaking reminded me a lot of Robert Parker's Spenser character. Both of them probably have their roots in other, older authors.

NE, I am afraid to revisit some of what I read and loved in my 20s; I don't want the experience of that discovery tainted by my "maturity." I'm glad to know that some of your 'old' reading has held up.

I read The Scarlet Letter my junior HS year, too, and loved it. I think it was my first real deep reading experience; I had a great teacher, and enjoyed all the discussion. However, I loathed The House of the Seven Gables. Never saw what others saw in it.

I really feel you're misunderstanding me, Peter. My reference to teenage angst referred to when I was a teenager, not to 30 years later. Again, I am NOT saying that art, in any form, is bad and worthless if I don't happen to connect with it, enjoy it, or be moved by it. I think you are confusing appeal with appreciation. I can appreciate a work for what it says, how it says it, and the meaning behind it; that doesn't always mean that I find it pleasurable to "imbibe."

Yes, Ruth, you're right. Stravinksy goes on my list.

Peter, I hope you're not implying that someone's dislike of an author, such as Pynchon, means that they don't like to be challenged?

You posted this just as I was replying to Peter. Apropos, indeed.

Russ, I did not mean to imply that you said I shied from hard work....hope the last note was clear.

Answering you brought back memories, Peter. I played classical piano all through childhood & adolescence, and my piano teacher was always fighting with me to get me to play the moderns. They did not speak to me like my beloved Chopin, Bach, and Brahms. However, that may also have corresponded to the adolescent need for romantic drama and emotional angst (Bach excluded). For what it's worth, here's my list of composers I resisted playing (and have some difficulty connecting with, even as an adult, although there are exceptions with particular pieces): Bartok, Shostokovich, Prokofiev, Ravel. Oh, and Khachaturian...there was another one she was always trying to slip in there somewhere. Again, I can understand and appreciate what "modernists" are attempting to do without wanting to read them voraciously myself. And I do not shy from hard work, as Russ says--there are plenty of "hard" authors I also find pleasurable.

It's my feeling that in this thread, at least, we are all aware that listing authors that we don't care for, or can't access, is not implying that they are "bad" authors or that their work is not important. For example, to take the discussion out of literature, I recognize the impact and importance of 20th century composers, but much of their work does not speak to me on an emotional or musical level. I can identify the value of it, but not be drawn to it personally. When I say I "loathe" Melville (and I think most of us are using these terms sort of tongue-in-cheek), it should not imply that I am dismissing him as unimportant or his work as worthy of sloughing.