What are we reading? 4/12/2023

[scarletnoir]

AB76 wrote: "Saul Bellow's debut novel Dangling Man."

Haha! You are clearly on a run of authors I have tried and didn't like... but that's fine. I've noticed before that our tastes differ as often as they overlap!

[MK]

Gpfr wrote: "Shortlists for the Stanfords travel writing awards — some very tempting books here:

https://www.stanfords.co.uk/edward-st..."

I'm going to keep an eye out for Red Smoking Mirror when it is available in the States.

[scarletnoir]

by François-Henri Désérable... again.

No, I haven't finished it - the book is so full of references, idioms, metaphors and terms unfamiliar to me that progress is slow - I'm on p56. 'Painfully' slow, you ask? Not a bit of it - it's a delight. It cheers me up every time I tackle a few more pages - but that can only be done after a good night's sleep and with at least an hour without anticipated interruption - conditions which can only rarely be met.

I even wonder if I remembered to introduce the main protagonist to you: Évariste was a genius level mathematician who made some major discoveries before dying absurdly young:

Évariste Galois (/ɡælˈwɑː/;[1] French: [evaʁist ɡalwa]; 25 October 1811 – 31 May 1832) was a French mathematician and political activist. While still in his teens, he was able to determine a necessary and sufficient condition for a polynomial to be solvable by radicals, thereby solving a problem that had been open for 350 years. His work laid the foundations for Galois theory and group theory,[2] two major branches of abstract algebra.

Galois was a staunch republican and was heavily involved in the political turmoil that surrounded the French Revolution of 1830. As a result of his political activism, he was arrested repeatedly, serving one jail sentence of several months. For reasons that remain obscure, shortly after his release from prison, Galois fought in a duel and died of the wounds he suffered.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89v...

I'll say more about the book as I proceed and when I finish it... one or two points here... a great joy is the way in which the author doesn't spell everything out for the reader, allowing a lot of scope for research into the background - and yet, you know that the connections were not accidental or unknown to the author. For example, we are told that Évariste was a brilliant student in mathematics, but cared little for other subjects where he was poor. His teacher's comment - preserved in notebooks at the Lycée Louis-le Grand - states that:
C'est la fureur des mathématiques qui le domine.
("The rage for mathematics dominates him."). The author then adds - CQFD. Well, I could sort of guess its meaning, but in full that stands for "ce qu'il fallait démontrer" - "which is what had to be demonstrated", in English usually written as QED from the Latin "quod erat demonstrandum". But where did this come from? According to Wikipedia,

The phrase quod erat demonstrandum is a translation into Latin from the Greek ὅπερ ἔδει δεῖξαι (hoper edei deixai; abbreviated as ΟΕΔ). Translating from the Latin phrase into English yields "what was to be demonstrated". However, translating the Greek phrase ὅπερ ἔδει δεῖξαι can produce a slightly different meaning. In particular, since the verb "δείκνυμι" also means to show or to prove,[2] a different translation from the Greek phrase would read "The very thing it was required to have shown."[3]

The Greek phrase was used by many early Greek mathematicians, including Euclid[4] and Archimedes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q.E.D.

And there we have it: a few pages earlier, the author has explained how Évariste mastered Euclid very quickly at the lycée. Did he need to add 'CFQD' at the end of his paragraph? Not at all. Was the link unintentional? No chance.

And so I spend my days down rabbit holes...

[AB76]

scarletnoir wrote: "AB76 wrote: "started another noir thriller from Pascal garnier The Panda Theory."


Well, good luck with that - I strongly disliked it. A silly story IMO, and made all the dafter by having a denoue..."

i'm not familiar with Brittany so cant vouch the authenticity of the town in the novel, when i finish it will be able to tell you if i find it silly too!

[AB76]

scarletnoir wrote: " by François-Henri Désérable... again.

No, I haven't finished it - the book is so full of references, idioms, metaphors and terms unfamiliar to me that progress is slo..."

i thought this was a classic novel and googled the author in anticipation, then realised its a modern novel and lost interest...lol

[Berkley]

scarletnoir wrote: "AB76 wrote: "Saul Bellow's debut novel Dangling Man."

Haha! You are clearly on a run of authors I have tried and didn't like... but that's fine. I've noticed before that our tastes differ as often..."

Which Bellows have you tried? I've read only one, Seize the day, and was pleasntly surprised to like it more thanI'd feared I would - because I've always felt a bit leery towards this author, not sure why. Anyway, I picked that one because it was early-ish in his oeuvre and very short, and enjoyed it enough that I'll likely try something else of his one of these days, though I haven't yet decided what or when (recommendations welcome, as usual).

[Berkley]

scarletnoir wrote: " by François-Henri Désérable... again.

No, I haven't finished it - the book is so full of references, idioms, metaphors and terms unfamiliar to me that progress is slo..."

Everything I've heard about Désérable makes me think I'll want to read his stuff at some point, though I fear it may be beyond my limited abilities in French so I'm wavering over whether or not to do the English translation instead.

[Robert]

I've given up on Vargas Llosa's Harsh Times. It's the first of his books that I haven't finished.

[AB76]

Robert wrote: "I've given up on Vargas Llosa's Harsh Times. It's the first of his books that I haven't finished."

what didnt you like about it? I wasnt as impressed as i thought i would be but i still liked it and the setting.

[scarletnoir]

AB76 wrote: "i thought this was a classic novel and googled the author in anticipation, then realised its a modern novel and lost interest...lol..."

I can count the number of contemporary authors I can be bothered to read on one hand... Désérable is the best of those (IMO). It's a pity you can't read this in French, as it isn't translated and would pose a major problem for anyone who attempted the task.

[scarletnoir]

Berkley wrote: "Which Bellows have you tried? "

Oh, I have no idea... it must have been around 55 years ago, and having come across the name somewhere decided to give him a whirl... it was a library book. Since I quit so early, it could not have been the content - it must have been the style I couldn't digest.

I don't re-read as a rule (though in my younger day, I did re-read my favourites - Dostoyevsky, Nietzsche, Camus and Sartre). My suspicion is that as I have grown older, I am even less tolerant than I used to be... so I'd be more likely to reject a previous favourite than to suddenly 'see the light' and develop an affection for someone who annoyed me in my youth!

[scarletnoir]

Berkley wrote: " it may be beyond my limited abilities in French so I'm wavering over whether or not to do the English translation instead..."

Rather - no, 'very' shamefully - there are no English translations of Désérable AFAIK. There is a 'good' reason (I suppose) - it would be a fiendishly difficult task, even for someone with excellent French and a huge background of cultural knowledge.

The 'bad' reason would be that English language publishers in the UK and USA simply can not be bothered to try to bring this fantastic author to the attention of their readers, and prefer to publish pap such as 'celebrity' memoirs and the like in order to maintain sales figures. Pretty stupid - 'Un certain M. Piekielny' is fantastically entertaining, even if a good deal of the subtleties in the writing would inevitably be lost in translation.

[scarletnoir]

"I love humanity - it's people I can't stand!"

I daresay many of us have seen this quote in one of its versions over the years, and it's a pretty good joke. I came across it again today, and wondered if anyone had bothered to try to trace it to its source.

And - voilà! - what do we find? It was apparently first written by my favourite author in the best novel I ever read - Dostoyevsky's 'Brothers Karamazov':

The below passage is an excerpt taken from The Brothers Karamazov (read in its entirety):

“I love humanity . . . but I can’t help being surprised at myself: the more I love humanity in general, the less I love men in particular, I mean, separately, as separate individuals. In my dreams . . . I am very often passionately determined to save humanity, and I might quite likely have sacrificed my life for my fellow-creatures, if for some reason it has been suddenly demanded of me, and yet I’m quite incapable of living with anyone in one room for two days together, and I know that from experience. As soon as anyone comes close to me, his personality begins to oppress my vanity and restrict my freedom. I’m capable of hating the best men in twenty-four hours: one because he sits too long over his dinner, another because he has a cold in the head and keeps blowing his nose. But, on the other hand, it invariably happened that the more I hated men individually, the more ardent became my love for humanity at large.”

https://www.growingupalienated.com/i-...

So, there we have it, for the present. Even if someone turns up an earlier formulation of this idea, I'm happy to link it to Dostoyevsky - the master psychologist.

[AB76]

scarletnoir wrote: "Berkley wrote: "Which Bellows have you tried? "

Oh, I have no idea... it must have been around 55 years ago, and having come across the name somewhere decided to give him a whirl... it was a libra..."

interesting we are both non re-readers scarlet. i have re-read novels but again like you not as a rule, i would say maybe 1% of the books i have read in last 24 years have been re-reads but its not a sign i dont want to re-read others, just there are so many books and so little time !

[Gpfr]

scarletnoir wrote: " 'Un certain M. Piekielny' is fantastically entertaining..."

I tried it after you recommended it and didn't get on with it all. I found the narrator unappealing and gave up quite quickly.
I thought I would try Tu montrera ma tête au peuple, but the library hasn't got it.
He's written a book about a 40-day trip he made to Iran in late 2022, L'usure d'un monde, following in the footsteps of Nicolas Bouvier, (L'usage d'un monde, 1985). It's had good reviews, I think I'll check it out.

[scarletnoir]

Gpfr wrote: "scarletnoir wrote: " 'Un certain M. Piekielny' is fantastically entertaining..."

I tried it after you recommended it and didn't get on with it all. I found the narrator unappealing and gave up qui..."

I wonder who you mean by 'the narrator' - Désérable himself? The first chapter describes how he took the decision to write about Romain Gary... later on, the 'narrator' is often Gary himself - or to be more precise, Désérable's version of what Gary wrote.

What you say is yet another example of how different we all are, and how an author who appeals to one person won't appeal to another. I have rejected a number of well-known authors who are prize winners and highly regarded, and I don't care - I didn't like them. I am not in the slightest put out or offended by your rejection of Désérable - we all have our own tastes and preferences, and the world would be a very dull place if we all liked the same stuff!

I must admit to being puzzled by those who are offended, when we don't like their favourite authors or books - there is nothing 'personal' about such opinions, just a difference in taste.

Edit: I just read the second part of your comment - by coincidence, I had just ordered that very book earlier this afternoon!

As for Tu montreras..., you may possibly like it better - iirc, the author doesn't put himself into the narrative in the same way (or certainly not to the same extent) as in 'Piekielny...', but the witty approach is still there. The book I've read whose approach most resembles 'Piekielny' in mixing the author's own life with that of the people described is by Laurent Binet - though I read that in English. I can see why some may prefer the author to remain 'invisible', in the same way that scientific papers insist on a third person approach, as if no human was involved in the processes of thought or experimentation - rather alienating for the average school pupil, and enough to put them off science for life! I find it more honest to say: "I did this. This is why I did it." But - that's just my opinion, one of many available. IMO, you can't remove the human (i.e. subjective) element from any human endeavour, though in science we do have the requirement that experimental results should be reproducible if the experiment is described honestly and in detail. If it's not reproducible, the data may not be valid.

[Gpfr]

scarletnoir wrote: "Gpfr wrote: " 'Un certain M. Piekielny' ...
I found the narrator unappealing ..."

I wonder who you mean by 'the narrator' - Désérable himself?"

Yes.
I didn't get very far in it at all, I took it back to the library quite quickly.

[MK]

I've had a scattered reading week. Because of a number of appointments I have been carrying Lord Cromer: Victorian Imperialist, Edwardian Proconsul around. Cromer is in India now attempting to do his financial modernization which is often hampered by the beauracracy at home. I really want to finish with India (gotta read through it) and get to Egypt, which is why I got the biography from the library in the first place. But there is much more here than a biography and worth some good read-time.

I do re-reads! Here are two - my bedtime comfort re-read (now back on the shelf) was The Sanctuary Sparrow. Nothing like murders and mayhem in 1140 to keep one up late.

Second is upcoming as I've downloaded the audio for March Violets which I hope to begin as I work outside (fingers crossed for sun and the promised 51°). It's been an age since my prior read so it will be almost new again.

[MK]

An aside about the Israel-Hamas War, but first a set-up.

Heather Cox Richardson, History (19th century USA) Professor began a newsletter and weekly videos on FB during lockdown. (I was forced onto FB by a prankster that killed the message board at the Hawk and Owl Trust as most of us moved there.)

She continues these videos, and I happened on her latest (all of 15 minutes) earlier this week. The subject was the war and the fact that she had gotten a number of nastygrams taking her to task for not taking one side or the other. More should say what she said - it's not my area; I'm not qualified to make a judgement. Good for her. Of course she went on to say that although Biden can't stand Netanyahu any more than a lot of people, but Biden's first priority is keeping the USA safe. He backs Netanyahu because he doesn't want Hezbolah getting into the act, nor their backers, Iran because Israel has the 'bomb' and Iran is working on it. So no mid-east conflagration, thank you very much.

Life is so darned complicated.

[Bill]

AB76 wrote: "interesting we are both non re-readers scarlet."

I am a re-reader, and would like to do more. For some reason, my prime candidates for re-reading (and re-re-reading) are dramas: Shakespeare, the Greek tragedians, and Faust. In the case of the last two, variety is added by picking up different translations than I'd previously read (while keeping those previous versions at hand - Did my reaction change or did the text change?).

Is it really re-reading if one reads a different translation each time?

[scarletnoir]

Gpfr wrote: "I wonder who you mean by 'the narrator' - Désérable himself?"

Yes.
I didn't get very far in it at all, I took it back to the library quite quickly..."

Fair enough. If the reader doesn't get on with the authorial voice, there's not much to be done about it. I find him funny, entertaining and informative... but that's just my opinion!

[AB76]

Bill wrote: "AB76 wrote: "interesting we are both non re-readers scarlet."

I am a re-reader, and would like to do more. For some reason, my prime candidates for re-reading (and re-re-reading) are dramas: Shake..."

good point, i dont think it can be in translation, so maybe you are not a re-reader.

i can see a comfort in re-reading, returning to books people love and that make them feel better. I just dont really read for comfort or to feel better, a lot of what i read is edgy and quite unsettling, though i dont see it like that, its more that i'm looking for big questions which maybe dont have answers but i will keep trrying.

i've never been a genre reader or into formulaic crime novels, i love novels without plot or direction but these are relatively rare among books published, where self-help, wokery and formulaic crime are all seen as key elements in getting published

one reason i'm happy i read so little modern literature is once it has been bent out of shape by every form of identity politics, it lose any relation to real life, unless you are a Harvard boss, testifying about anti-semitism...lol

[AB76]

MK wrote: "An aside about the Israel-Hamas War, but first a set-up.

Heather Cox Richardson, History (19th century USA) Professor began a newsletter and weekly videos on FB during lockdown. (I was forced onto..."

Sensible Yanks know Netanyahu is garbage and kept him at arms length Obama for two terms and Biden till Gaza kicked off. The flabby, shifty Netanyahu has now blundered into his selfish dream scenario, where he can feel important again on the world stage, i just hope in time, he is booted out of politics altogether and forgotten very quickly

I loved this Carville quote via the NYT

How the hell am I still looking at Netanyahu’s stupid, crooked, ignorant, negligent face? This guys still in power after the greatest intelligence failure since 9/11?”

[Robert]

I found a Rumpole book in the donated books section of the library. "Rumpole and the Penge Bungalow Murders" was the first John Mortimer book I'd read in years and is a real pleasure.
My sister has requested a British mystery for Christmas, and I'm going to pass it on to her.

[Berkley]

Robert wrote: "I found a Rumpole book in the donated books section of the library. "Rumpole and the Penge Bungalow Murders" was the first John Mortimer book I'd read in years and is a real pleasure.
My sister ha..."

I just looked it up and saw that this is one case where the tv show came first and the books later, which is a bit unusual - and puts me into a bit of a quandary as to which I should try first.

Speaking of adaptations, I also learned today that the book I'm reading right now, Antonio Tabucchi's Pereira Declares: A Testimony, was made into a movie in 1995 with Marcello Mastroianni and Daniel Auteuil (wonder if he spoke Italian?) which Iwill probably try to see at some point.

[Berkley]

scarletnoir wrote: ""I love humanity - it's people I can't stand!"

I daresay many of us have seen this quote in one of its versions over the years, and it's a pretty good joke. I came across it again today, and wonde..."

Do you remember which character it was who said this? I'm thinking it was old man Karamazov, the father of the brothers, but don't feel 100% certain, as he may have been too cynical to express even this limited degree of interest in humanity. I've read the book twice, with a long span in between, probably 20 years or so; it's been I think nearly ten years now since the last time.

[Robert]

I wish that editors would re-read the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision before publishing commentary. For example, Forbes stated that six justices voted to scrap precedent and overrule Roe and Casey. However, Chief Justice Roberts filed a separate opinion, stating in part:

But that is all I would say, out of adherence to a simple
yet fundamental principle of judicial restraint: If it is not
necessary to decide more to dispose of a case, then it is necessary not to decide more. Perhaps we are not always perfect in following that command, and certainly there are
cases that warrant an exception. But this is not one of
them. Surely we should adhere closely to principles of judicial restraint here, where the broader path the Court
chooses entails repudiating a constitutional right we have
not only previously recognized, but also expressly reaffirmed applying the doctrine of stare decisis. The Court’s
opinion is thoughtful and thorough, but those virtues cannot compensate for the fact that its dramatic and consequential ruling is unnecessary to decide the case before us.

[AB76]

Dangling Man by Saul Bellow(1944) is an unusual read, i never seem to expect what is around the corner, settling in for a tale of a restless soul waiting for the call up in WW2 snow bound Chicago, i seem to find two characters in one and its great to read.

Its my second Bellow after The Victim. Its interesting that so far, only surnames suggest any Jewish presence in this novel and almost like Bellow wants to remove a Jewish identity from the families and characters involved. That suprised me as he always seemed quite open about Chicago and its Jewish life.