The True North Book Club is moving back to the main fold -- just too many groups to check makes it hard to keep up the club away from the main group.

All True North members are welcome to participate in this book club but are in no way required to do so. If you are not participating, please respect the book club's discussion threads. Off topic comments will be removed by moderators without warning.

Thanks Sherri! So, anybody wanna talk about a book?

The two best books I read in 2008 (which I shamelessly encourage all to read whenever possible) are Animal Vegetable Miracle: A Year of Food Life by Barbara Kingsolver and The Soloist: A Lost Dream an Unlikely Friendship and the Redemptive Power of Music by Steve Lopez.

The unabridged audio book version of Animal Vegetable Miracle: A Year of Food Life (read by the authors) is also fun -- though the chapter on "turkey sex" *might* be best with headphones if you're at home...people overhearing this might think you've flipped ("What ARE you listening to?!?!?!").

My #1 choice for 2008's must-read of must-reads is The Soloist: A Lost Dream an Unlikely Friendship and the Redemptive Power of Music. I remember exactly where and I was on Sunday, 17 April, 2005 when I read the first of the columns that became this book (at: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-... ). I keep begging my mother to finish it, so I can have my copy back to re-read it before the movie comes out on April 24th (the official site is: http://www.soloistmovie.com/ ). Inspirational and well-worth reading; I can't even articulate all the ways and reasons this story is inspirational.

Oh, and the entire city of Philadelphia is reading this book -- one of those "one city, one book" deals.

I absolutely loved Animal Vegetable Miracle.

Sarah Pi wrote: "I absolutely loved Animal Vegetable Miracle. "

I've also read Jane Goodall's Harvest for Hope: A Guide to Mindful Eating, but the whole idea of suggesting a book on local and organic eating is that the person to whom I suggest the book actually finish said book. Goodall's book is very good, but contains pretty graphic *PETA-esque* shocking details of the reality of CAFO's (concentrated animal feeding operations). None of that is new to me, but it's preaching to the choir for who would want to read it. Kingsolver's book is an easier, more accessible read to those previously uninformed.

Have you read Small Wonder: Essays?

No-- but I just put both of those on my list.

Sarah Pi wrote: "No-- but I just put both of those on my list."

[Along with President Jimmy Carter, Dr. Dame Jane Goodall is one of "my heroes" -- as both have used their lives to do wonderful and meaningful things to try to help make the world a better place; I am biased in this...:]

Dr. Dame Jane Goodall is AMAZING. Some people talk about changing the world -- she's done it (and is still at it). She is going to be seventy-five years old this upcoming April 3rd, yet she still tours the world about 300 days/year (I had the honor of hearing her speak at the Huntington Library and Botanical Gardens on her 70th birthday at a Roots & Shoots celebration). If you like Jane Goodall, I would also recommend Reason for Hope: A Spiritual Journey; there was also a PBS special based on this book. I'm still exploring her works, but she has two "autobiographical" books (which are interesting because she has had a fascinating life). I've read Africa in My Blood: An Autobiography in Letters, which I intend to re-read before reading Beyond Innocence: An Autobiography in Letters The Later Years.

You'll love Small Wonder -- I love Kingsolver's fiction, but I might just enjoy her nonfiction just that much more. High Tide in Tucson: Essays from Now or Never is also good (though topically varied), but Small Wonder is better. There are so few books of really wonderful essays being published anymore (and as an essayist myself, this makes me sad).

I haven't read enough Kingsolver, and look forward to reading more. For a long time, I had lumped her in with Jane Smiley in my head, and I hate Jane Smiley. I have several Kingsolver books now and just have to get around to reading them.

Oh my, they are so so different! Kingsolver is so warm, Smiley is very cerebral. I love Kingsolver. I did like A Thousand Acres by Smiley, but that may have to do with how much I love King Lear. I have never been able to get through any of her other books.

The thing I like best about Barbara Kingsolver (aside from the Bellwether Prize for fiction: http://www.bellwetherprize.org/ ), is that her style is very tongue-in-cheek sassy. This is true in her works of nonfiction, but also in many of her works of fiction through her style of narration (Rachel's and Ruth May's chapters in The Poisonwood Bible are priceless). Sometimes I think that writers forget that serious writing doesn't always have to be serious all the time.

I never really made any serious resolutions or reading plans for this year, but it popped into my head the other day that I should use the year to read as many Pulitzer Prize winning novels as I could. I'm going to read them chronologically, but I'm finding it to be an interesting commentary to look at which ones are still in-print. His Family by Ernest Poole (from 1918) I could not find locally. The first one I found (from 1919) is The Magnificent Ambersons by Booth Tarkington, followed by The Age of Innocence by Edith Wharton in 1921. Let me tell you, there is quite a difference in tone and style from those works to 2008's prize for The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao by Junot Diaz. I also found it interesting that -- often -- the book for which an author won the Pulitzer Prize was not always his or her most notorious and/or beloved work.

Perhaps you mean notable? Or maybe you do mean notorious, ie of ill repute, infamous, or widely and unfavorably known? I am not correcting you I'm just trying to understand how to take what you said. You confuse me sometimes.

I confuse me sometimes too. What's that Whitman line: "Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes)."

No, I meant "notorious."

Some of the authors wrote other books that ended up causing quite a stir of controversy (and some of them are/were banned). There are some "notable" works, and surely "notorious" are always "notable."

"Notable" books merely cause me to raise my eybrows -- "Hmmm...that's nice, some high-brow somewhere thinks I should read this? Whatever."

"Notorious" makes me want to read them (it's a "Wet Paint!" or "Do Not Step on the Grass" kind of deal). "Notorious" is just the sort of thing I was raised not to seek to read (for we only want to think pleasant thoughts, now don't we?).

I see.

So... which classics do you consider notorious, Cecily?

I would say the clearest one of the Pulitzer Prize winners (that I've read) in the "notorious" category is To Kill A Mockingbird. there has also been a whole lot of buzz about The Grapes of Wrath, though that is not Steinbeck's most "red" work. I know many who find much to object to in The Color Purple.

More broadly, I'd have to cite stuff off the list (having already confessed to not having read most of it...)

As for "beloved" -- (not Beloved ;-) ) -- One of Ours by Willa Cather is a good example. Most people have read My Antonia or O Pioneers or Death Comes for the Archbishop -- One of Ours does not generally make the list. I actually started it online once -- it bored me; I'm determined to give it another shot one of these days.

Now Sinclair Lewis fits both categories. The Jungle was definitely "notorious." Also, Lewis won the Pulitzer in 1926 for Arrowsmith. I've never heard of it, but I have heard of Babbit, Main Street, and The Jungle.

Cecily wrote: "I would say the clearest one of the Pulitzer Prize winners (that I've read) in the "notorious" category is [b:To Kill A Mockingbird|2657|To Kill a Mockingbird|Harper Lee|http://photo.goodreads.com/..."

I have to disagree with your definition of notorious, then, Cecily. Notorious means that something is well-known for its badness. Al Capone is notorious. To Kill a Mockingbird is not.

Nor would I describe anything by Willa Cather as notorious. Well-known, yes. Known for bad reasons, no.

Perhaps the word you are looking for is "controversial", which works for The Grapes of Wrath and The Color Purple. But there still, I don't see how To Kill a Mockingbird or Cather fits.

I agree, Jackie. Upton Sinclair's The Jungle was controversial, not notorious.

Fanny Hill Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure or Tropic of Cancer might be considered notorious classics -- at least, if I recall rightly, the US Postal service thought so for a while :)

And Lolita was notorious, too. Possibly still is.

Lady Chatterly's Lover was certainly notorious. No longer.

I disagree with the assessment that TKAM could be notorious -- I think it depends on where and when. I am absolutely certain beyond a shadow of a doubt that had I lived contemporary to its publication, it would have been banned for me to read by my family for its indecent content. Indecent content? In some eyes, yes (though, granted, not very educated or very progressive eyes).

Catcher in the Rye was absolutely notorious for being "filthy" and "indecent" (which is hilarious when I consider the kind of stuff in movie theatres these days).

I never said Cather was "notorious" -- if you look at the original post, I was talking about "beloved." Cather wrote more "beloved" works than One of Ours.

I would also add The Awakening to notorious in the thread of Lady Chatterly's Lover -- absolutely scandelous at the time of publication, though it would have been moreso had *our brave heroine* not met a "just" end to her immorality via (probable) suicide. Jude the Obscure was also extremely notorious (not controversal, notorious) upon publication, but -- again -- the characters "get what they deserve" for their immorality and thus it becomes a morality tale. As for me, I've always wanted to send that group to be on Dr. Phil, because everything points to there being some seriously repressed sexual abuse issues in the case of Sue (What really seals the deal on that is when she jumped out the freaking window!!!). And Little Father Time??? That kid gives me the heebie-jeebies -- he's like one of those "spawn of Satan" kids in more modern psycho thrillers.

Stapling machine Mrs. Zambesi.

And how do you get on with these French people?
Oh very well.
So do I.
Me too.
Oh yes I like them. I mean, they think well don't they? I mean, be fair - Pascal.

What a strange turn this cycling tour has taken. Mr Gulliver appears to have lost his memory and far from being interested in safer food is now convinced that he is Clodagh Rogers, the young girl singer. I am taking him for medical attention.

Snort.

Ah, what a relief. Thank you.

Care to dance?

Shall we waltz or do you prefer (oh, I'm already sorry and I haven't even typed it yet) the BUNnyhop?

Polka!


In other news (look! I'm diverting back to the topic! What has come over me?) I've just picked up Harold Bloom's How to Read and Why. I first remember hearing about Bloom when I read The Little Guide to Your Well-Read Life a few years ago. Has anyone else read this book or other books by Bloom? (He has quite a list, apparently).

Bunny hop? Whahahaa!!

I read a couple of Bloom's books and thought them okay and informative although rather prolix. Unfortunately, I then saw him in an interview on T.V. and now cannot get the picture from my mind:

The aging Bloom, head so very full of wisdom and information that he must rest it on one hand, eyes so tired from reading and re-reading ancient yet important tomes that he must rest them with the lids at half-mast and cannot meet the eyes of the interviewer, yammering on and on and ON about the terrible exhaustion one feels after teaching a class of hand-picked undergrads eager to sit at the feet of the master. I was left with the indelible impression of an old, pompous, inusfferably superior pain in the neck, bloviating about things in litrachuah. Sad, but there it is.

I definitely identify with that. As much as I try to separate the author from the work, sometimes it can be extremely challenging. Truman Capote's whole self contemptuous effete aesthete thing gives me the collywobbles. Harlan Ellison's patented rudeness was kind of hard to get past too.

Thing is I don't waaant to have a book I enjoy tarnished by finding out I don't like the author much. Sometimes I feel I'd really rather not meet/see em. The best of what they have to offer is in the book anyway, so why chase the less articulate, less measured, cranky because its been a long day and his feet hurt part?

And yet an author interview comes on tv and I perk up my ears. People. We are odd.

Hi Sherri - I have no idea what the topic is so ..... I have read some Bloom, and wish I hadn't seen Gail's post - it does somehow fit the image I had in my mind - but someone has to lead the charge for western litrachur - dont ya know - The Western Canon = I found it very interesting and he has a clear understanding of the subject and a way of communicating that worked for me - That said, however, this quote from the jacket will give you a sense of where he comes from...
"he deplores multiculturalism, Marxism, feminism, neoconservatism, Afrocentrism, and the New Historicisim" The New Historicism??? Thats an awful lot of stuff to deplore.

I dont like when those isms take the place of evaluating work based on its merits, and lead to elavating mediocre work to canonical status, but to dismiss them out of hand is silly.

On the other hand, one of his central themes in the book is that "shakespeare is "at the center of the western canon. Shakespeare has become the touchstone for all writers who come before and after him, whether playwrights, poets, or storytellers. In the creation of character, Bloom maintains, Shakespeare has no true pecursor and has left no one after him untouched" This I found to be a compelling and illuminating part of the book.

And, in fairness, he has relatively good sections on Woolf, Borges and Neruda, so he is not a total stick in the mud. Erudite, thoughtful, if occaisonally turgid and a tad 19th century would be my take on him. I've also reads the How to Read book and enjoyed it and the Book of J which was also illuminating.

Also, you'll need coffee to go with the cookies with Bloom, lots and lots of coffee.

Will diet Pepsi work? I've never developed a taste for the average obtainable cup of coffee, and it takes too much fuss and effort to get one that doesn't taste like burned burnt stuff. I've spent years building up an immunity to Diet Pepsi.

I just started reading Neverwhere A Novel by Neil Gaiman (Gaiman seems to be everywhere lately, if you ask me!), and the suggestion came up to discuss it.

I know a lot of you have read it already, and I've seen raves reviews for it, and reviews that said it sucked, so it seems like a good one for discussion!

Anyone want to join in? If there's enough interest, I'll start a new thread.

I'm in.

Yay!

I read it a few years ago - but Im off on a trip so I'll take it with for a reread - so count me in

Yay!

I loved Neverwhere, I'll definitely join.

Count me in as well...I'm developing a significant interest in Gaiman and in Pratchett.

Excellent!

I'm in ...soon as I can find my copy.

Edit: found it. If it was a snake, well, I'd have made a real mess.

I'm in.

Huh. I love group discussions of books, so I'm interested. Been meaning to read this anyway. Hopefully there's not a huge waiting list at the libes.

When shall we start discussing?

I'm reading it now, so I'd love to start right away - or maybe Monday, which is June 1st, which seems like a good starting time.

Ha! See, there is an excellent reason to stock up on used books from GoodWill at the risk of having a few hundred to-read cluttering my house. I already have Neverwhere. Can we start Monday?

Monday is good for me.

Great - I just started it, very enjoyable, and will be an easy quick read for me. Great break between bk 7 and 8 of the Malazans.

Okay, I'll put up a thread dedicated to the discussion. Yay!

Loved this one, wish I could have seen the movie, may have to buy it some day.

Jackie "the Librarian" wrote: "I just started reading Neverwhere A Novel by Neil Gaiman (Gaiman seems to be everywhere lately, if you ask me!), and the suggestion came up to discuss it.

I know a lot of you have..."

I have the BBC miniseries. It's excellent, despite (because of?) the usual cheesy BBC effects.