|
|
|
You mean you didn't know Kansas invented sex?
|
|
|
More of a 3.61. I liked this more than 'Donkey Gospel' but not quite as much as 'Unincorporated Persons,' so it's a fitting chronological bridge b/w the two.
"And dying you know shows a serious ingratitude For sunsets and beehive hairdos and the prec...moreMore of a 3.61. I liked this more than 'Donkey Gospel' but not quite as much as 'Unincorporated Persons,' so it's a fitting chronological bridge b/w the two.
"And dying you know shows a serious ingratitude For sunsets and beehive hairdos and the precious green corrugated Pickles they place at the edge of your plate"(less)
|
|
|
|
This book faced an uphill battle in winning my affection, b/c of stupid, unfair resistance on my part formed on the notion its author had seemingly built an entire career off of a single short novelty story written 15 years ago. But it climbed all th...moreThis book faced an uphill battle in winning my affection, b/c of stupid, unfair resistance on my part formed on the notion its author had seemingly built an entire career off of a single short novelty story written 15 years ago. But it climbed all the way up that hill and gave me a good wallop in the face and brain for good measure. This is a really, really good collection of stories--the best I've read since David Means' 'The Spot' last year. The title story may be the one that people know, but it's the weakest one here, and thus works well in this collection because it's not trying to bare the burden of being the strongest story in the collection. Here it's just a smart, amusing story, surrounded by much stronger ones, like "Samoza's Dream," "The Bridge," "Hunger Stories," and well pretty much every story here is interesting. I think what was exciting to me is that the stories worry less about the deep focus on a single character's predicament than they do on the the event, the collective, the idea, as well as the way in which they can be presented, which is to say structure and language, which is to betray my aesthetics, which is to say, hey, taste is taste.(less)
|
|
|
|
Didn't love it the way I loved 'Virgin Suicides'--but still pretty damn good. Not sure how it took me nine years to read a book I supposedly was dying to read. It kind of fell into this group of longish books of the last 15 years (Underworld, Correct...moreDidn't love it the way I loved 'Virgin Suicides'--but still pretty damn good. Not sure how it took me nine years to read a book I supposedly was dying to read. It kind of fell into this group of longish books of the last 15 years (Underworld, Corrections, Infinite Jest, Kavalier and Clay, Freedom, Pale King, 2666, Against the Day) that I've slowly been working through (still need to hit Underworld, K&C, 2666, and A the D!!! Quoth Jesse Spano, that poetess of Bayside High: "There's never any time"). Anyway, it's a big, roiling, plotty family novel, released at the right cultural moment, when there's so much discussion and debate about enlarging notions of gender and identity. There are excellent reasons for not doing so, but I did find myself hungry to get to the Cal portions of the book. Similarly, I was curious about the missing 25 years b/w Cal's point of telling (at 40) and where his narrative leaves off at 15, but again, there are good reason for it that are stated pretty clearly in the first few pages. One of the interesting features of the book is Cal's 'impossible knowledge'--not only relating events in great detail that he wasn't around to see, but also asserting knowing of things he could no way have known (e.g. inhabiting family members' consciousness or things they did, thought, felt, while alone)--and it works because he asserts these things with confidence. They feel true in the moment b/c he says they are, and they even work upon reflection b/c we know that the impossible knowledge he shares with us is a wonderful imaginative leap that actually tells us more about him than the truth of his family. There's a horrific description of the burning of Smyrna, an interesting an amusing plot turn on the origins of the Nation of Islam, and an absolutely outlandish plot twist at the end that somehow doesn't sink the book. It all still works and feels true and satisfying. JE's new novel comes out in September, almost ten years after Middlesex, which was ten years after 'VS.' Gotta admire that patience. Hopefully it won't take me ten years to read the next one.(less)
|
|
|
|
As with all the Haymarket titles I've read, this was an interesting read, part of their "______ and Socialism" series, which are nice, readable introductions to a whole host of important issues and ideas. The book looks to give an "overview of the ma...moreAs with all the Haymarket titles I've read, this was an interesting read, part of their "______ and Socialism" series, which are nice, readable introductions to a whole host of important issues and ideas. The book looks to give an "overview of the main ideological and political currents in the struggle for Black liberation and argues that socialist ideas, in the past and future, play a part of that struggle." It's always been a tricky thing for socialists, who privilege class and the economic base, to talk about other forms of oppression. It's been a flaw in the movement historically to downplay race, gender, sexuality, environmental, etc. oppression, and see them only as offshoots of the greater economic oppression, the result of capitalism, which, unsurprisingly, limited the appeal of movement to those groups. Which is part of the balancing act of present-day Marxist socialists: how do you respect that oppression is multiple and unique in a meaningful way while still asserting its causes are not? Anyway, the book is well worth the read. I found the discussions of the slave trade and Civil War/ Reconstruction particularly interesting, as were the more modern discussions of MLK, Malcolm, SNCC, and the Black Panthers. One criticism: while Shawki does mention the FBI targeting the Panthers (and other radical groups) with COINTELPRO, there is no mention of Fred Hampton and Mark Clark. The government's assassination, as well its attempts to cover-up the murder, of one of the most promising young, Black leaders in the country is shocking hole in this otherwise soundly researched book.(less)
|
|
|
|
This book suffered do to the circumstances in which I read it, a time of transition, hard to get a rhythm. Still, I didn't love this like I hoped. I thought it was solid, more of a 2.5, but lacked a lot of the power, craft, and voice of "Slouching." ...moreThis book suffered do to the circumstances in which I read it, a time of transition, hard to get a rhythm. Still, I didn't love this like I hoped. I thought it was solid, more of a 2.5, but lacked a lot of the power, craft, and voice of "Slouching." While she does investigate some of the history and myth-making of California, the most compelling parts of the book are personal, as at the end with her mother, and I wish it were the other way around. Still, as someone fascinated by his home, it was a book I could sympathize a lot with: "Yet California has remained in some way impenetrable to me, a wearying enigma, as it has to many of us who are from there. We worry it, correct and revise it, try and fail to define our relationship to it and its relationship to the rest of the country."(less)
|
|
|
What to say? Perhaps you've heard it's an entertaining book about boredom? Which is true, and thus makes it a great companion to the we're-killing-ourselves-with-entertainment theme of Infinite Jest.
While the book is indeterminate, which is nothing ...moreWhat to say? Perhaps you've heard it's an entertaining book about boredom? Which is true, and thus makes it a great companion to the we're-killing-ourselves-with-entertainment theme of Infinite Jest.
While the book is indeterminate, which is nothing new for Wallace's fiction, it is clearly unfinished. Most of it is backstory and set-pieces on the workers who end up at the Peoria IRS regional center and it leaves off right as we get everyone in the same room in the present of the story, the 'present' being 1985. That said, it's still fucking amazing to read. All the Wallace empathy, humor, neuroses, preoccupations, and depth are here.
You can see a lot of what went into the Kenyon speech here: "It was true: the entire ballgame, in terms of both exam and life, was what you gave your attention to vs. what you willed yourself not to."
What struck me here is how moral and political the book is (though these are present strands in all his work). Moral here in the sense that he chose the IRS in large part as a way to talk about individual responsibility for the collective whole. Political here in the sense that he picks the year 1985, a time when Reaganite neoliberal policies were shifting the IRS (to say nothing of every corporate and political institution) away from an old school paying-and-collecting-taxes-as-a-moral-responsibility-of-citizenship POV to running the IRS as a business, trying to maximize revenue and minimize cost, a cost which only is measured in terms of profit and not human cost (like losing your job to a machine). As he says in one of the private notes at the end: "Big Q's whether IRS is to be essential a corporate entity or a moral one."
I thought Pietsch did a really nice job assembling this.
Most of all it felt good to be in that singular brain and consciousness again, made me happy and then also sad.
From the first page: "Look around you. The horizon trembling, shapeless. We are all of us brothers."(less)
|
|
|
|
This is my first encounter with Handke, someone I've been meaning to read for the last couple years. It's a very short book, written in a two-month burst, recounting his mother's life after she's committed suicide. Despite these factors of its compos...moreThis is my first encounter with Handke, someone I've been meaning to read for the last couple years. It's a very short book, written in a two-month burst, recounting his mother's life after she's committed suicide. Despite these factors of its composition--the close, urgent I-have-to-write-this-now-ness--it's told with complete dispassion, except for an unspeakable despair and horror that he acknowledges, and he absents himself from the narrative nearly in total, sticking mostly to what he calls 'the facts' of her life, though there's lot's of gray area (e.g. dipping into her POV, etc). Eugenides's intro is good, esp in talking about how 70'a American postmodernism differs from European (thus Handke's). He writes of the book: "There is just a rigorous demonstration of the failure of language to express the horror of existence." Stand up and cheer, it ain't, but a good, interesting read.(less)
|
|
|
This was enjoyable but suffered only in comparison to how much I loved "Unincorporated Persons." This feels less political and not quite as laugh-caught-in-my-throat producing. That said: "Down inside history's body, / the slaves are still singing in...moreThis was enjoyable but suffered only in comparison to how much I loved "Unincorporated Persons." This feels less political and not quite as laugh-caught-in-my-throat producing. That said: "Down inside history's body, / the slaves are still singing in the dark; / the roads continue to be built; / the wind blows and the building grips itself / in anticipation of the next strong gust. / So an enormous act of forgetting is required / simply to kiss someone."
Damn, also: "Until we say the truth, there can be no tenderness."(less)
|
|
|
|
Picked this off the bestseller table and did not regret. A lot of yucks at the beach with this one.
|