Excellent account of the initial impact of Darwin's "Origin Of Species" in America. According to Fuller, this may be one instance in which we know whoExcellent account of the initial impact of Darwin's "Origin Of Species" in America. According to Fuller, this may be one instance in which we know who the first person in the country was to read a given book. In any event, it went hand-to-hand among a few intellectuals bwfore its general publication (in a pirated edition) and began to make itself felt.
It was 1859, the year of John Brown, and Thoreau, Bronson Alcott, Franklin Sanborn, Emerson and others were impacted by Darwin's new hypothesis. Asa Gray, a botanist and eventually chief antagonist of the pre-eminent scientist in America, Louis Agassiz (who never accepted evolution), saw in Darwin a solid, scientific argument against the rationalizations of slavery.
Fuller gives us a rich account of these people, their world, and the effects of Darwin's stunning ideas had on America. We can see the lines being drawn in the controversy that has held much of our attention intellectually and theologically since. Highly recommended.,...more
An unexpected gem, Gleick gives us an insightful look at a concept that has captured science by way of fiction and contoured the thinking of the 20thAn unexpected gem, Gleick gives us an insightful look at a concept that has captured science by way of fiction and contoured the thinking of the 20th Century in unexpected ways. Beautifully written, contemplative, often nonlinear, and satyisfyingly broad, this exegesis on an idea is surprising and delightful....more
Stories live inside stories. Like Matryoshki dolls, they nest inside each other. The walls are permeable, the delineations indistinct, and viscera movStories live inside stories. Like Matryoshki dolls, they nest inside each other. The walls are permeable, the delineations indistinct, and viscera moves from one to another to another, and so, osmotically, verisimilitude emerges with reference and resonance. We recognize the truth of stories because they remind. Even when we’ve never heard that particular story before, the lexical and symbolic soup, sometimes called culture, we swim in makes certain elements part and parcel of what we recognize as truth.
Fiction depends on this mantle of story sediment. The better a writer understands the essential reality of the material, the more potent the experience is for the reader. The more we identify with character, connect with setting, and surrender to the flow of the narrative, the more substantive is the story and the truer it feels.
It’s a risky thing for a writer to make the nesting itself part of the story, to show the workings of narrative baldly, like pulling away the curtains on the machinery of the narrative and make it one of the surface elements. Like a magician explaining the trick as it is being performed, the only thing that can save the experience from the failure of banality is if the exposition of form enhances the total experience.
For example, Kea Wilson’s new novel, We Eat Our Own, from the first line exposes its inner workings and makes us complicit in the construction of the experience. The second-person present tense is like a set of instructions. She not only is telling the character what is happening but she is showing us how the inevitable accrues and acquires momentum.
Frightening momentum, in this case.
A young actor, struggling, in 1979, accepts a role in a film being shot in the Columbian rainforest. It’s an Italian horror film, being made by a director with a long list of credits and a certain reputation. This is his first film done on location. Our actor is a last-minute addition because the first American actor they hired would not even get on the plane after reading the script. The director needs an American, preferably an unknown.
In a fine stroke, Wilson keeps the actor’s name from us, eventually referring to him only by his character name. Already we are descending into the caverns of nested narratives. Like Dante who got lost in a dark wood and found his way into Hell, our actor takes the part and gets lost in a dense forest. And because of the way Wilson has chosen to tell her story, not only are we privy to the hell into which he descends, we know how he’s going and are powerless to prevent it. In fact, we don’t want to prevent it, because we are hungry to know what he does when he realizes where he is.
It’s not all told this way. There are third person stretches, past tense, present tense, and a heady dance of omniscient viewpoint throughout. All of which serves to bring us, layer by layer, into the central theme that carries through the novel like humidity or mosquitoes. Wilson is exploring the way in which we feed on each other. Indeed, how we depend on a kind of food chain of the soul in order to know not only who we are but what we ought to do and where we need to be. For some, those who have a tenuous grasp on self-knowledge to begin with, the cannibalism can take on aspects of gluttony, draped in byzantine rituals designed to keep us blind to our own dysfunctions.
Like our actor, who asked repeatedly to be shown pages, a script, told what his character is supposed to be doing and, most importantly, why—but is repeatedly refused, and in fact looked upon with annoyance because he needs to know. He doesn’t. But it’s not just his part in this bizarre movie (which involves cannibalism, of course) of which he is ignorant. He has no clue about much of anything.
The assembled production company, cut off from civilization (because a phone line has yet to be run to the town outside of which they’re shooting), stumbles and reels through the whims and impulses of the director, who seems to have a clear idea what he wants but won’t tell anyone what it is. (At one point, during a trial, being asked to defend his film and the risks he took with his people, he demands”Did it frighten you?”)
Into the mix we discover a group of young revolutionaries set up nearby. They are involved in kidnapping and extortion and have an arrangement with a drug cartel. They need money to fund their grandiose dreams of overthrowing the government and instituting a Marxist state. Maybe.
More layers, more stories, all intersecting, bleeding through each other, fertilizing, polluting, transforming. Reading Wilson’s prose is like listening to freeform jazz, where everything reaches a point of apparent chaos and then, with startling precision, comes together to create a very precise, rich effect.
Fake deaths, real deaths, soul death, murder, suicide, and the headlong pursuit of a path chosen because, in the end, it seemed like the path available, work hand in glove with the revealed structure of the book to drag us into it in such a way that recognizing an essential aspect of human nature—or our nature—is impossible to avoid. Wilson shows us the costs of not knowing and the painful necessity of making choices n the face of too little information and too much expectation. Of ourselves and others.
I said this is a new novel. It is also, impressively, a first novel. It does not feel like a first novel. It feels like the mature work of someone who understands human nature and sees how the structures we inhabit prompt choices often tragic and surreal.
In the end, that question lingers: did it frighten you?
It’s about humans on the edge, making art and chaos.