Tomorrow is a big, big day. Biggest of all, Harriet goes to the doctor for her six month checkup, so she'll get shot up with powerful poisons and we'll find out how many point how many pounds of enormous she is. What this means, however, is that I won't be able to head down to the CBC to see Canada Reads 2010 unveiled. I'm honestly sad about this, and looking forward to finding out this year's books (which I may or may not read, depending on what they are). In related news, Julie Wilson is guest-hosting the CBC Book Club. In Julie Wilson-related news (and there always is some. I am sort of a Julie Wilson fanatic, actually), tomorrow also starts Advent Books-- a book a day to satisfy your holiday shopping-recommendation needs.
I am now reading Gaudy Nights, and I'm surprised to find that it is a fairly demanding read in terms of length and content. Maureen Corrigan also ruined the ending, but I think I'll still enjoy the ride.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Help Me, Jacques Cousteau by Gil Adamson
Essential to note, however, that Help Me, Jacques Cousteau is a linked story collection, which follows a character called Hazel from young childhood into her late teen years. And though episodic, these stories do come together to create a narrative arc that would satisfy a reader with a craving for a novel. A little bit like Emma Richler's Sister Crazy, but not quite as leaden in the end, and with a dash of the spirit of Adrian Mole, what Help Me... has in common with The Outlander is prose constructed with a poet's deft hand, attention to each sentence, and the paragraphs. Rhythm, cadence, alliteration, precise imagery and perfect word choice. Two sentences stuck together like these ones: "My mother is physically fantastic. She's long, tall, elastic."
But what Help Me... also has is wry humour, and a remarkable narrator in Hazel, who is blessed with remarkable powers of perception. Her voice is an anchor in this text of eccentric characters and bizarre goings-on, a voice unchanging as the world around her spirals out of control. This unchangingness works, however, because what does change are the things that Hazel perceives with her remarkable powers as she grows older-- eventually, her parents' fallibility, the strain in their marriage, that things fall apart, that no one (including herself) is quite who they're supposed to be.
Adamson attributes to Hazel a peculiar deficiency of long-term memory which keeps the collection from being an exercise in nostalgia. Also notable, that Hazel is not the stereotypical misfit, in that she has friendships (however fraught, but this is high school) and boys willing to make out her (plenty of them actually, which is a novel plot device for a poetry-loving teen) so that we're not taken down that familiar road that always ends with bulimia and somebody's initials carved in a thigh.
So though its formula is tried and tested, Help Me... is infused with originality. Hazel's family and her neighbours come to life through her eyes-- her fantastic tall mother, strong enough to open any spaghetti jar; her brother and his solar curtains; her experience pet-sitting for a neighbour in a house of tropical fish; a grandfather who frequently turns up unexpectedly, and makes himself comfortable in a bath; a bevy of uncles and aunties; a bed full of cousins; a father who rewires the house when he's anxious.
Help Me... begins with an epigraph from the Talking Heads' song "Heaven": "Heaven is a place where nothing ever happens." Hazel's life, on the other hand, is a place where something always does, and though Hazel might desire a bit of a reprieve, at least we get the good fortune of reading all about it.
Friday, November 27, 2009
On James Wood on Byatt, and the Universe
Too many magazines come to my house, and after I had a baby in May, I didn't get around to reading any of them for ages. So it's only just now that I've read "Bristling With Diligence", James Wood's review of A.S. Byatt's The Children's Book (because I'm superstitious about reading my periodicals and their contents out of order).
Like all of James Wood's reviews, this one was as fascinating to read as the book it pertained to. There was not a single point upon which I really disagreed with him (except for "Byatt is a very ordinary grown-ups' writer"), he got the book right on, and yet I loved The Children's Book and James Wood distinctly didn't. And this is where an objective approach to criticism breaks down, I think, or where I cease to understand it. Wood lets his evidence speak for itself, but what that it says something quite different to me?
I realize that Wood has an agenda of sorts, or rather an "approach" to fiction, and that I've not been paying much attention to what that is, so let us not make that the point. Instead, I want to point out the curiousity of Wood taking down Byatt for characters who are "dutiful puppets, always squeezed and shaped for available meaning." That as author, Byatt "dances, with leaden slippers, around the thought-sleep of her characters... [with] that teacherly, qualifying, authorial judgment." That "an atmosphere of historical typicality drapes the stories' individual forms." That "Whenever a detail could be selected at the expense of another one, Byatt will always prefer to buy both, and include the receipts". (I love that sentence. Honestly, that every book review could be so vital and engaging, but I digress...)
To all of which, I reply, "Yes, yes, yes! And isn't it marvelous?" Because it occurs to me that what I like best about fiction is not its realism (sorry, James Wood), but the way that a novel or story can be its own little universe. I confess: I like witnessing Byatt's manipulations. I like writers that move their characters around like pieces on a boardgame, and I like omniscience, and I like a guiding hand. Ruby Lennox at the beginning of Behind the Scenes at the Museum: "I exist! I am conceived to the chimes of midnight on the clock on the mantelpiece in the room across the hall." Realism, this isn't.
I like Margaret Drabble, her novel The Radiant Way, and how "an atmosphere of historical typicality draped... individual forms." Perhaps fiction is not so informed by history, but I think it works especially well the other way around. Also, I like how in Drabble's novel The Gates of Ivory, a character from The Needle's Eye appears out of nowhere, and how these novels are seemingly unconnected otherwise, the character is minor in both novels (which were written nearly two decades apart), but how this connection gives impression of a Drabbleverse, and that I am privy to it.
I think all of this is now old-fashioned, though it was once so modern they made an "-ism" of it. For I think Mrs. Dalloway was that kind of book, and so was To The Lighthouse. Whose characters stood for things, and knew things they didn't even know they knew (though Mrs. Ramsey did). I think Zadie Smith's fictional worlds are like this too (though I don't this has to do with Wood's "hysterical realism", but I could well be wrong. I often am about things like that).
By chance (or for some deeper reason as determined by a guiding force, who knows?), I read Wood's review as I was reading Penelope Lively's novel Cleopatra's Sister. Lively (who won the Booker Prize in 1987 for her extraordinary novel Moon Tiger) is a critically-underrated writer (which doesn't mean she doesn't get good reviews, but that is something different). Her novels-- and this one in particular-- deal with ordinary lives intersecting with history, the trajectory of destiny, teleology. Her recent novel Consequences is about what it sounds like; her pseudo-memoir Making It Up is a fictionalized autobiography, supposing different paths she might have taken in her life.
Cleopatra's Sister is about history as random or inevitable, and Lively shows that it is both or n/either as she brings her two main characters together through a series of events that begins with Gondwana (and rapidly does proceed to the present day, do not fear; Clan of the Cave Bear this book is not). "These events are chronological; they take place in sequence and are in some senses contingent upon one another. Remove one-- extract a decade, or a century-- and the whole historical ediface will shift on its foundations. But that ediface itself is a chimera, a construct of human intellect. It has no bricks and stones-- it is words, words, words. The events are myths and fables distortions and elaborations of something that may or may not have happened; they are the rainbow survivors of some vanished grey moment of reality."
Which has a double-meaning, of course, in that this is fiction, but reality as we make sense of it is only "words, words, words" too. Which makes the concept of realist fiction sort of absurd to consider.
Achieving reality itself as the goal of fiction is one thing, but I think the construction of a fictional self-contained universe (like the Drabbleverse, the Livelyverse) is just as noble a fictional pursuit. However, not so much in the realm of the fantastic (excuse me, my bias is showing), where in order to be authentic, you just make everyone sound a little bit Welsh. But rather, universes that so resemble this one, but which are consciously constructed. Because what marvelous constructions these are, I always think. The details required in such creation (which is exactly why Byatt would get both, and receipts). It's like rebuilding the whole world again, brick by brick, and guiding its people up and down the streets. Controlling traffic. And setting in play a chain of circumstances, like say, the New Years Eve during which Archie Jones tries to kill himself, fails, and then meets Clara, the Jamaican daughter of a devout Jehovah's Witness, and then we're off! for a few hundred pages.
Of course, all this, like everything, is a matter of taste. I was discussing Amy Jones' story collection What Boys Like with a friend the other day, and she told me that her least favourite story was "The Church of the Latter-Day Peaches"-- which had been one of the ones I liked best. (Note: We agreed our mutual favourite was "All We Will Ever Be", but I digress. Again.) My friend felt "Church of..." wasn't as strong as the rest of the collection due to its storiedness--its cuteness, its beginning, middle and end, such a tidy shape, the patterns, how it contained its own lore, how parts of it meant something other than what they were. That it didn't stand for life itself. And when all of that had been what I'd enjoyed so much about it-- there really is no accounting for other people, is there?
What I'm slowly getting around to then is questioning the assumption that fiction has to be real. Which is hardly original, I know, but I wish to point out what a feat still is an excellent novel without realism as its intention. That such a novel can be excellent, even, and The Children's Book-- while not flawless, and Wood had a point about the problem of its history-- is a tremendous book, even with its author pulling strings. That string-pulling is no small feat sometimes. That a book can be a book, and that can be wonderful in itself. And that it's still baffling that literature is supposed to be or achieve any one thing, because like a whitman, or the universe itself, literature (and fiction, and the novel) contains multitudes.
Like all of James Wood's reviews, this one was as fascinating to read as the book it pertained to. There was not a single point upon which I really disagreed with him (except for "Byatt is a very ordinary grown-ups' writer"), he got the book right on, and yet I loved The Children's Book and James Wood distinctly didn't. And this is where an objective approach to criticism breaks down, I think, or where I cease to understand it. Wood lets his evidence speak for itself, but what that it says something quite different to me?
I realize that Wood has an agenda of sorts, or rather an "approach" to fiction, and that I've not been paying much attention to what that is, so let us not make that the point. Instead, I want to point out the curiousity of Wood taking down Byatt for characters who are "dutiful puppets, always squeezed and shaped for available meaning." That as author, Byatt "dances, with leaden slippers, around the thought-sleep of her characters... [with] that teacherly, qualifying, authorial judgment." That "an atmosphere of historical typicality drapes the stories' individual forms." That "Whenever a detail could be selected at the expense of another one, Byatt will always prefer to buy both, and include the receipts". (I love that sentence. Honestly, that every book review could be so vital and engaging, but I digress...)
To all of which, I reply, "Yes, yes, yes! And isn't it marvelous?" Because it occurs to me that what I like best about fiction is not its realism (sorry, James Wood), but the way that a novel or story can be its own little universe. I confess: I like witnessing Byatt's manipulations. I like writers that move their characters around like pieces on a boardgame, and I like omniscience, and I like a guiding hand. Ruby Lennox at the beginning of Behind the Scenes at the Museum: "I exist! I am conceived to the chimes of midnight on the clock on the mantelpiece in the room across the hall." Realism, this isn't.
I like Margaret Drabble, her novel The Radiant Way, and how "an atmosphere of historical typicality draped... individual forms." Perhaps fiction is not so informed by history, but I think it works especially well the other way around. Also, I like how in Drabble's novel The Gates of Ivory, a character from The Needle's Eye appears out of nowhere, and how these novels are seemingly unconnected otherwise, the character is minor in both novels (which were written nearly two decades apart), but how this connection gives impression of a Drabbleverse, and that I am privy to it.
I think all of this is now old-fashioned, though it was once so modern they made an "-ism" of it. For I think Mrs. Dalloway was that kind of book, and so was To The Lighthouse. Whose characters stood for things, and knew things they didn't even know they knew (though Mrs. Ramsey did). I think Zadie Smith's fictional worlds are like this too (though I don't this has to do with Wood's "hysterical realism", but I could well be wrong. I often am about things like that).
By chance (or for some deeper reason as determined by a guiding force, who knows?), I read Wood's review as I was reading Penelope Lively's novel Cleopatra's Sister. Lively (who won the Booker Prize in 1987 for her extraordinary novel Moon Tiger) is a critically-underrated writer (which doesn't mean she doesn't get good reviews, but that is something different). Her novels-- and this one in particular-- deal with ordinary lives intersecting with history, the trajectory of destiny, teleology. Her recent novel Consequences is about what it sounds like; her pseudo-memoir Making It Up is a fictionalized autobiography, supposing different paths she might have taken in her life.
Cleopatra's Sister is about history as random or inevitable, and Lively shows that it is both or n/either as she brings her two main characters together through a series of events that begins with Gondwana (and rapidly does proceed to the present day, do not fear; Clan of the Cave Bear this book is not). "These events are chronological; they take place in sequence and are in some senses contingent upon one another. Remove one-- extract a decade, or a century-- and the whole historical ediface will shift on its foundations. But that ediface itself is a chimera, a construct of human intellect. It has no bricks and stones-- it is words, words, words. The events are myths and fables distortions and elaborations of something that may or may not have happened; they are the rainbow survivors of some vanished grey moment of reality."
Which has a double-meaning, of course, in that this is fiction, but reality as we make sense of it is only "words, words, words" too. Which makes the concept of realist fiction sort of absurd to consider.
Achieving reality itself as the goal of fiction is one thing, but I think the construction of a fictional self-contained universe (like the Drabbleverse, the Livelyverse) is just as noble a fictional pursuit. However, not so much in the realm of the fantastic (excuse me, my bias is showing), where in order to be authentic, you just make everyone sound a little bit Welsh. But rather, universes that so resemble this one, but which are consciously constructed. Because what marvelous constructions these are, I always think. The details required in such creation (which is exactly why Byatt would get both, and receipts). It's like rebuilding the whole world again, brick by brick, and guiding its people up and down the streets. Controlling traffic. And setting in play a chain of circumstances, like say, the New Years Eve during which Archie Jones tries to kill himself, fails, and then meets Clara, the Jamaican daughter of a devout Jehovah's Witness, and then we're off! for a few hundred pages.
Of course, all this, like everything, is a matter of taste. I was discussing Amy Jones' story collection What Boys Like with a friend the other day, and she told me that her least favourite story was "The Church of the Latter-Day Peaches"-- which had been one of the ones I liked best. (Note: We agreed our mutual favourite was "All We Will Ever Be", but I digress. Again.) My friend felt "Church of..." wasn't as strong as the rest of the collection due to its storiedness--its cuteness, its beginning, middle and end, such a tidy shape, the patterns, how it contained its own lore, how parts of it meant something other than what they were. That it didn't stand for life itself. And when all of that had been what I'd enjoyed so much about it-- there really is no accounting for other people, is there?
What I'm slowly getting around to then is questioning the assumption that fiction has to be real. Which is hardly original, I know, but I wish to point out what a feat still is an excellent novel without realism as its intention. That such a novel can be excellent, even, and The Children's Book-- while not flawless, and Wood had a point about the problem of its history-- is a tremendous book, even with its author pulling strings. That string-pulling is no small feat sometimes. That a book can be a book, and that can be wonderful in itself. And that it's still baffling that literature is supposed to be or achieve any one thing, because like a whitman, or the universe itself, literature (and fiction, and the novel) contains multitudes.
Pym Up A Ladder
As I've written already, I'm having a terrible time finding Barbara Pym novels, and it seems I just have to wait for her fans to die because there's no other way they're going to let her go. I sort of fancied just walking into any old used bookshop and buying up her library for a dollar or two, but alas, no dice.This is bothersome because I fell in love with Pym just a few weeks back (via Excellent Women), and then Maureen Corrigan kept going on about her, and now DoveGreyReader has just posted a marvelous ode. In which she notes Pym's A Very Private Eye: An Autobiography in Diaries and Letters, which is available at Ten Editions Bookstore, at the end of my street, no less.
So I had no excuse not to go and fetch it, and why not the Pym novel No Fond Return of Love while I was at it? It was a hardcover, in excellent condition and with a gorgeous dust jacket (that put me in mind of Persephone Books) and not too expensive. So that's done, and it's fine, because I've shown excellent book buying restaint this past month. Except A Child's Christmas in Wales that I bought yesterday, but that doesn't count, because it's illustrated with woodcuts by Ellen Raskin and she wrote The Westing Game.
The very best part of all of this is not my purchases themselves, however, or even my supposed restraint, but that the books I bought today were to be found high up a ladder. The kind that slides along the shelf of course, and I sought permission before I felt free to climb it. Permission granted, and I've never found a book in such a fashion in my bookbuying life. Such a monumental moment, to be commemorated with a photograph of course. The whole thing was very exciting.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Six Months With Harriet
Harriet is six months old today, which is older than she's ever been before. I remember when she was six weeks old, which I thought was ancient, and now I can't believe that she was ever that small, and fragile, and terrifying to consider.We've been taking photos on each of her montheversaries of Harriet in the gliding chair with Miffy -- the strange wavy armed baby on the right is Harriet at 1 month. And from the progression of photos, it has become obvious that not only is the gliding chair now absolutely covered in puke, but that the baby has grown. Which is kind of what we expected, but I still can't quite get over how strange it is that right before my eyes, she has turned into this sturdy, hilarious, little person. And I didn't notice a thing.
Six months is really good. We spend our days doing the things that make Harriet laugh and smile (singing "Boom Boom, Ain't It Great to be Crazy", dancing stupidly, bouncing her up and down in the air, round and round the garden like a teddy bear) because Harriet's laughter and smiles are so absolutely gorgeous. And these days, she's even got her own sense of humour-- according to Harriet, there is nothing funnier than the chicken puppet. She is very discerning.She's cutting her first tooth right now, once in a while elects to sleep up to four hours at a time, is in a rolling frame of mind, enjoys listening to Elizabeth Mitchell, Miley Cyrus, The Beatles and Vampire Weekend, listens also to a lot of CBC Radio 1, seems to attract lady-bugs, loves it when her dad gets home from work, eats books, eats food too (blueberries tonight!), likes to chew on her rubber duck and make it squeak, enjoys sucking on her toes, playing with her ball, is showing an affinity for Miffy, growing hair(!), likes to jolly jump, pokes eyes or gets her eyes poked depending on whether we're hanging out with other babies older or younger than she is, she goes from Wibbleton to Wobbleton (which is fifteen miles), pulls bookmarks out of books, wants to touch everything, and two weeks ago she ate the shopping list.
It's so hard. And I don't think it ever gets easy, but it gets easier. And then harder too, of course, in all new ways, but the whole thing is also totally worth it in a way I'm really beginning to understand now. Only beginning to, though, because it's an understanding I can't articulate or even make sense of to myself, and it's more a steady current inside of me than a feeling at all.She is delightful, and fascinating, and amazing, and I can't remember a world in which Harriet was not the centre. Which is not to say that sometimes I don't wish for a different focus for a little while, but it would always comes back to her anyway. It always does. And it will forever, but how could it not?
We've all come a long, long way.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Remarkable
That my library owns a DVD copy of the movie It's Pat is quite remarkable, but what's even more so is that sometimes the movie is signed out.
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Leave me alone, I'm reading
I spent the weekend enjoying Maureen Corrigan's book Leave Me Alone, I'm Reading. (My copy is an ARC I picked up at the Vic Book Sale, and may I say it makes me happy to know that an ARC can have its life extended?) Other than the fact that I'm into reading books about reading books (lately, Howards End is on the Landing and Shelf Discovery), before I picked it up, this book didn't hold a ton of appeal to me. I've never listened to Corrigan's reviews on Fresh Air, and her focus on detective fiction and Catholic martyr stories didn't exactly turn me on, but she's a wonderful writer and the whole book was engaging. Also, I realized I recognized the "Catholic martyr story" Karen and With Love From Karen by Marie Killilea, which I don't think I ever read, but I remember from the paperback rack of every school library I ever browsed through.
Like most books about a reader's relationship with books, the shape of the narrative was bizarrely (but pleasingly, I thought) random. Corrigan weaves the books of her life into the story of her life-- how women's "extreme-adventure" tales led her to her adopted daughter from China, how detective fiction helped her find her way out of the mire of academia, how she remembers her father through the WW2 history books he used to read. Also, how Maureen Corrigan finally found love, her quest for "work" in the novel, how a woman who reads for a living could be two generations away from a grandmother who never learned literacy. She also mentions Barbara Pym (whose books are proving hard to find used, by the way. Seems those that like her books also like to keep them).
As I read Leave Me Alone, I'm Reading, I had to keep going online to put books on reserve at the library-- in particular, and in transit to me as I write this (!), I am excited to read Gaudy Nights by Dorothy L. Sayers (which features a literary Harriet) and Operating Instructions by Anne Lamott. And Quartet in Autumn by Barbara Pym. After discovering Corrigan's reviews online, I'm also looking forward to reading The Man in the Wooden Hat.
I just finished reading Lost Girls and Love Hotels by Catherine Hanrahan, which was too gritty for my English old-lady tastes (though I am Canadian and thirty. I am just not cool). From that experience, I realized that I get incredibly irritated reading about people spiralling toward rock bottom, and that is just my sensibility. The ending of the book, however, made it for me. Shocking, gross, and brilliant.
Now I am reading Cleopatra's Sister, which is a novel by Penelope Lively, which means that I'm enraptured. (The book has a whiff of Moon Tiger about it, which has been my favourite Lively novel yet.)
Like most books about a reader's relationship with books, the shape of the narrative was bizarrely (but pleasingly, I thought) random. Corrigan weaves the books of her life into the story of her life-- how women's "extreme-adventure" tales led her to her adopted daughter from China, how detective fiction helped her find her way out of the mire of academia, how she remembers her father through the WW2 history books he used to read. Also, how Maureen Corrigan finally found love, her quest for "work" in the novel, how a woman who reads for a living could be two generations away from a grandmother who never learned literacy. She also mentions Barbara Pym (whose books are proving hard to find used, by the way. Seems those that like her books also like to keep them).
As I read Leave Me Alone, I'm Reading, I had to keep going online to put books on reserve at the library-- in particular, and in transit to me as I write this (!), I am excited to read Gaudy Nights by Dorothy L. Sayers (which features a literary Harriet) and Operating Instructions by Anne Lamott. And Quartet in Autumn by Barbara Pym. After discovering Corrigan's reviews online, I'm also looking forward to reading The Man in the Wooden Hat.
I just finished reading Lost Girls and Love Hotels by Catherine Hanrahan, which was too gritty for my English old-lady tastes (though I am Canadian and thirty. I am just not cool). From that experience, I realized that I get incredibly irritated reading about people spiralling toward rock bottom, and that is just my sensibility. The ending of the book, however, made it for me. Shocking, gross, and brilliant.
Now I am reading Cleopatra's Sister, which is a novel by Penelope Lively, which means that I'm enraptured. (The book has a whiff of Moon Tiger about it, which has been my favourite Lively novel yet.)
Monday, November 23, 2009
Happy Birthday, Stuart!
Every year around this day, or to be more specific, on this day, I get to say aloud what I think all the time, which is, "What a terrific man is this Stuart character I've somehow got myself hooked up with." Because he really is fantastic, and in seven years I've not even begun to get enough of his marvelous company, and I'm so proud of the thirty-year old man who's made a life for himself that that twenty-three-year old I met years ago would be in awe of. So grateful also that he's so unfailingly good to me, and for the life we've made together.In short, he's fantastic, and during the past six months he's been put to the test, with his patience, caring nature, hilarious sense of humour, much relied-upon ingenuity, and his understanding rarely waning. And that they rarely waned rather than never did only shows he's human, but what an extraordinary one. Harriet and I are so very lucky, because he's an excellent husband and a wonderful dad. I love him very much.
Happy Birthday!
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Reasons for and Advantages of Breathing by Lydia Peelle
Perhaps Lydia Peelle's stories seem a bit old fashioned because most of them are so blatantly about something. So that I finish reading one, for example "Phantom Pain", exclaiming that the story was amazing, and when I'm asked what it was about, I can say, "A one-legged taxidermist and a mountain lion on the loose." And then, naturally, whoever I've been talking to wants to read the story now.A bit of their old-fashionedness also comes from these stories' deep investment in history, and a focus on farming and the land. "The Mule Killers" is three generations contained in one single tale, which navigates changes in farming life (mule killers are tractors). "Sweethearts of the Rodeo" looks less far back, an elegy-that-isn't-an-elegy to a summer two girls on the cusp of adolescence spent working on a horse farm. "Kidding Season" takes place in the present day, but recounts a troubled young man's experiences working on a goat farm. In "Shadow On A Weary Land", a motley collection of characters (one of whom is apparently communing with the spirit of Jesse James) search for treasure buried by James' brother on property outside of Nashville that is rapidly being developed into subdivisions.
Peelle's agrarian history is no idyll, however. A seminal moment in the "Sweethearts of the Rodeo" summer involves the head of a dead pony in the jaws of a dog. The ending of "Kidding Season" is so sickeningly devastating, you'll read the final paragraph again and again, willing it to say something different. The narrator of "Shadow On A Weary Land" is an octogenarian stroke victim/former drug addict, and the yarns he spins are a product of his past.
"Reasons for and Advantages of Breathing" reminded me of Birds of America Lorrie Moore. The stories "Phantom Pain" and "The Still Point" paint the underside of the present day in stunningly vivid terms. "This is Not a Love Story" chronicles an abusive relationship, displaying a wonderful treatment of the "life as a flowing river" metaphor, when that river is a man-made lake that had flooded a town, and how there's nothing else to do but go around and around. This story in particular undercuts any notion of the good old days: "But wasn't it worth it?' she said. 'Wouldn't you do it all over again?'/No, it wasn't worth it, I told her. Not any of it./ Not one damn minute of it./Trust me."
Peelle displays some self-awareness in "This is Not a Love Story", her narrator a girl from Connecticut who in the early '80s decides to become a photographer and "move to the South, where I had never been and which seemed so mysterious: raw and dangerous and full of relics of a long-gone era." Peelle, a native of Boston, might have been similarly naive when she moved to the South, when she started writing about the South, but her stories show she's since learned that the dangers are elsewhere, that the long-gone era is an illusion, and relics aren't the things you might have chosen to last.
But writing about the South, she treads on a dangerous tradition, and thus come the comparisons of William Faulkner and Flannery O'Connor. There are moments when it feels like she might be striving toward these voices, but on the whole I would posit that, as an outsider, Peelle comes at the South from a unique point of view, and hers are even less elegiac than these writers' non-elegies for a long-gone era that never was and never went.
Where Peelle is like O'Connor, however, is in these moments in which she digs in her knife and twists it, and then you realize that the story you've been reading is darker, its people more awful, what has happened is even more tragic than you've ever imagined. I mentioned the end of "Kidding Season" already, and can't get explicit or I'll ruin it, but Peelle manages to synchronize her readers' awareness of dawning horror with that of her protagonist in a way that is absolutely masterful. "Phantom Pain" has a similar impact. Everything is loaded.
I like this book for the lines it crosses-- Peelle's history isn't dead and buried, but keeps coming up again year after year (and kudos for that wonderful asparagus image in "The Mule Killers"). Which is perhaps where she gets her lack of elegy from, for its hard to elegize something so close to the surface. Peelle's stories mix urban life and farm life, they're stories of home and of the road (and neither of these so much like the home and road you read in books). I like that if you picked up this book, and read it straight through, you'd have a hard time telling whether it was written by a woman or a man, and in that ambiguity, I think, Peelle's writing takes on tremendous power.
This is a stunning collection that deserves to be read and celebrated, and I think the one only leads to the other.
The only proper way to breastfeed
It's strange, I think, that while breastfeeding is so ridiculously revered in our society to the point where bottle-feeding can raise eyebrows, the image of breastfeeding itself might raise those brows even higher. Mostly because we never see it, in real life or in the media, which perpetuates breastfeeding imagery as taboo, and so it goes. So I've been eagerly keeping track of breastfeeding imagery during this last while, on television (Being Erica) and in children's books (lately, Busy Pandas).But I especially like this picture, from Susan Meyer's Everywhere Babies (which acknowledges breastfeeding as being just one of many ways that babies everywhere are fed).
While we don't see enough breastfeeding imagery, even rarer is imagery of the only proper way to breastfeed-- with a book in hand.
It is telling, however, that the mother has fallen asleep. Some days are just too much for multi-tasking.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
It had to be stories
I just finished reading the short story collection Reasons For and Advantages of Breathing, which I finally picked up after having it recommended by Lauren Groff and seeing it was selected as one of The National Book Foundation's 5 Under 35 Fiction Selections for 2009. I am much excited about the book and its author, Lydia Peelle, and I'll be writing a review this weekend, but in the meantime, why the internet is great as follows.
Her book's playlist at Largehearted Boy. Her story "The Mule Killers" for your reading pleasure. Lydia Peelle interviewed by Gillian Welch, and in particular this:
"It is like making an album. A short-story collection is like an album in ways that a novel is not; your hope is for the whole to be greater than the sum of its parts. What you want is for each song or each story to stand on its own, but for them to say something greater when collected in one album or between the covers of a book. And sequencing is so important—as I know it is with a record—the way you order the stories; you think about the emotional arc to the whole book. I wouldn’t want a reader to skip around the book, but to read the stories in order. As for the stories, well, I knew it had to be stories …"
Her book's playlist at Largehearted Boy. Her story "The Mule Killers" for your reading pleasure. Lydia Peelle interviewed by Gillian Welch, and in particular this:
"It is like making an album. A short-story collection is like an album in ways that a novel is not; your hope is for the whole to be greater than the sum of its parts. What you want is for each song or each story to stand on its own, but for them to say something greater when collected in one album or between the covers of a book. And sequencing is so important—as I know it is with a record—the way you order the stories; you think about the emotional arc to the whole book. I wouldn’t want a reader to skip around the book, but to read the stories in order. As for the stories, well, I knew it had to be stories …"
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
On Longing: Bugs and the Victorians
After reading this review in the LRB, I am dying to read Bugs and the Victorians. My own interest in literary entomology (because believe it or not, I've got one!) arose via Virginia Woolf, who wrote about bugs a lot, and also wrote a wonderful fictionalized biographical sketch of Eleanor Ormerod in The First Common Reader. Ormerod was Britain's foremost entomologist during the late 19th century, which was a very important kind of scientist to be at that time, and that she was a woman is only one of the many remarkable things about her. She's mentioned in the LRB review, along with various surprising ways the study of insects influenced Victorian society.
Anyway, the book also happens to be $55, so I don't imagine I'll be reading it anytime soon.
Anyway, the book also happens to be $55, so I don't imagine I'll be reading it anytime soon.
Mother Knows Best: Talking Back to the Experts
I suppose it's not so different to those mothers that wish to see themselves in their children's books, that I've been looking for me in my own reading. Or rather seeking representations of my experience since becoming a mother, not because I'm so entirely self-interested, but because the politics of motherhood are hard to understand. And motherhood is politicized, the whole of it, which is natural in the case of any group of people lacking power enough to properly go around.Mothers are also a group of people desperately trying to tame chaos, which makes them perfect targets for authority of all kinds. And these authorities, I've noticed, do tend to be men and childless women, which is probably because these are the only people unlearned enough to think that babies could be a science. In Mother Knows Best: Talking Back To The "Experts" (published by York University's Demeter Press, which also published Motherhood and Blogging: The Radical Art of the Mommy Blog), writers address this notion of "expertness", and discuss the impact of these authorities on modern mothering.
And it is "mothering", which the carefully benign "parenting" is usually an euphemism for anyway. Mothering a baby is scientific like the tide is, natural as anything, tied to the moon, but much more difficult to time by a clock. So that an expert will tell you that your breastfeeding pain is impossible, because Baby's latch is fine, but feeding makes you want to die. Another will tell you that babies don't get fevers whilst teething, even though you've had three children and it was the case for all of them. I read a book by a breastfeeding champion who said that babies do not require burping, that gulping does not cause gas, but he's obviously never met my daughter. A baby's poo (oh, of course I was going to talk about poo! Can you believe I waited until the third paragraph!), says the baby books, will always be yellow, but I've met mothers of the healthiest of babes with veritable rainbows. (And even worse, even the "experts" don't agree with one another. This is very confusing. In making any major decisions about my child's wellbeing, I've found the best solution so far is to throw the baby books out the window. They make a mighty thunk. What fun!)
All of this expertism serves to undermine a mother's instinct and confidence, and the idea that there is just one way to be a baby or a mom is what pits women against one another so mercilessly. The conflict is apparent even in the anthology-- in "Deconstructing Discourse: Breastfeeding, Intensive Mothering and the Moral Construction of Choice", Stephanie Knaak questions studies that find any difference between breastfed and formula-fed babies. In the next article, Catherine Ma begins "If the Breast is Best, Why Are Breastfeeding Rates So Low?" with "The consensus on the benefits of breast milk is undisputed on both institutional and individual levels."
So which is it? But in this anthology, that is not the point, which is instead to examine the politics of these ideas, which it does so effectively. And novelly as well, which is novel itself with arguments that have been rehashed over and over again. In "Making Decisions About Vaccines", Rachel Casiday writes about those parents who "know" that the MMR vaccine was behind their child's autism, just as that mother I mentioned before "knew" that fevers came with teething. Whether or not these parents are right is not the point either, and Casiday's thesis is that this kind of parental "knowledge" has to be taken into account by authorities regardless. These parents have their own particular brand of expert knowledge, and the dismissal of their concerns by authorities is what leaves other parents torn between experts (for it was a scientific study, however now debunked, that made the autism/MMR link) and wary of having their own children vaccinated.
Mother Knows Best also examines breastfeeding and attachment parenting, and how these inform ideas of "the good mother". How many feminists have embraced these practices, though they run so contrary to feminist politics. The fetisization of "the natural", to justify breastfeeding and attachment parenting, though these ideas are out of place in the society in which we live (and in America, in particular, where maternity leave is pitiful). I have become quite accustomed, in the liberal circles in which I run, to turning my nose up at sleep training and Nestle, but it was interesting to interrogate these ideas, and question where they come from. To consider whether it might be egocentric to forego a career to be there for your child, and assume your presence will make up for whatever material goods the child will lack. How ultrasound imagery renders the fetus subject rather than object. How pregnancy guide advice compares to actual women's experiences.
Though academic theorizing is odd to those of us outside the academy, I've found it quite useful to examine the politics of motherhood within this construct. Because discussions of motherhood get so personal, otherwise, and then defensive, mean and ridiculous. And all the experts who claim to come without agenda, but nobody is, so to take a step back is really worthwhile. An anthology like this is the closest thing to "the big picture" that I've been able to grasp yet of the big, big picture that motherhood is, and for that reason among many, I'm glad I read it.
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Harriet enjoying
Here is Harriet enjoying brunch in Kensington Market this past Sunday. Photo by the incomparable Erin Smith.
Monday, November 16, 2009
On Hilary Mantel and Fludd etc.
I'm currently reading Fludd by Hilary Mantel, as an experiment in reading books by Hilary Mantel I have no desire to read. Fludd, at 186 pages, you see, is much less an investment than Wolf Hall's terrifying 650. I still have no desire to read Wolf Hall either, but for various reasons have been possessed to buy it. And now I'm enjoying Fludd so immensely, that I feel enjoying Wolf Hall could be less unlikely than I previously thought.
All this leading to two points.
1) Hilary Mantel is absolutely scathing in this book. And I'm reminded of a writing teacher who once criticized a story of mine for lack of sympathy toward the idiots within it, and so I rewrote these idiots with a more human touch. With hearts in their depths. But now I kind of wish I hadn't. Though Hilary Mantel is a far better writer than I could ever hope to be, I think that some meanness is delicious, and not all fictional characters need hearts in their depths. I just need to learn to be mean more intelligently.
2) Her range! Fludd is more like Beyond Black than any of her others I've read (and I'd term these "supernatural realism). Could these possibly be by the same writer who wrote historical epics Wolf Hall and A Place of Greater Safety? The brutally black comedy Every Day is Mother's Day? The more conventional (but no less brilliant) novels Eight Months of Ghazzah Street, A Change of Climate and An Experiment in Love? I am becoming more and more unafraid to read Wolf Hall, because I've never met a Hilary Mantel novel that wasn't amazing.
Which makes me think of Margaret Atwood, and Doris Lessing too-- writers who've branched out in unimaginable ways. Challenging their readers' sensibilities, exploring the limits of genre, breaking the mold again and again. Seems like these are writers to whom "the novel" is a brand new blank white page, every time they sit down to write one.
All this leading to two points.
1) Hilary Mantel is absolutely scathing in this book. And I'm reminded of a writing teacher who once criticized a story of mine for lack of sympathy toward the idiots within it, and so I rewrote these idiots with a more human touch. With hearts in their depths. But now I kind of wish I hadn't. Though Hilary Mantel is a far better writer than I could ever hope to be, I think that some meanness is delicious, and not all fictional characters need hearts in their depths. I just need to learn to be mean more intelligently.
2) Her range! Fludd is more like Beyond Black than any of her others I've read (and I'd term these "supernatural realism). Could these possibly be by the same writer who wrote historical epics Wolf Hall and A Place of Greater Safety? The brutally black comedy Every Day is Mother's Day? The more conventional (but no less brilliant) novels Eight Months of Ghazzah Street, A Change of Climate and An Experiment in Love? I am becoming more and more unafraid to read Wolf Hall, because I've never met a Hilary Mantel novel that wasn't amazing.
Which makes me think of Margaret Atwood, and Doris Lessing too-- writers who've branched out in unimaginable ways. Challenging their readers' sensibilities, exploring the limits of genre, breaking the mold again and again. Seems like these are writers to whom "the novel" is a brand new blank white page, every time they sit down to write one.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
What Boys Like by Amy Jones
I'd previously read Amy Jones' "The Church of the Latter-Day Peaches" in The New Quarterly, and as I read the story again in Jones' new collection, I was hoping that this time the story might be different. This time, could it possiby have an ending that wouldn't break my heart? It didn't, though I was so hopeful that a little trick with italics caught me once again, and I dared to be tripped up by the same trick that caught me before.And how engaging is that, I ask? To read so far into a story, that it wraps itself around me, and then I get all wrapped up in it too, and the whole thing is an untenable knot?
What Boys Like is a lot like its cover. Though its tone is not upbeat, the colours are so vivid that you'd never find these stories bleak. And yes, the girls are often steeley-eyed, dangerous, tough as nails. The comic-strip touch suggesting a pop-cultural bent, and indeed, Jones' characters listen to pop music, they play video games, sports is playing on TV, and references are tied up in zeitgeist.
Jones displays impressive range, writing in first, third and an impressively-executed second-person. Her characters are male and female, young and older than young, on the cusp, over the edge, or past the point of no return. They lead such desperate lives, and then there are these moments of grace-- the pregnant lady who shares her peanut butter sandwich, the man who dares a young girl to be something, that Jenny goes home at all, Marty looking for bats in the garden, and all that love. The baby inside her. And when those who really get it had it coming anyway.
These are stories mostly of Halifax, in and around. In "The Church of the Latter-Day Peaches", the first sentence tells the story: "There is nothing more unseemly than a pregnant widow at a funeral". "Places to Drink Outside in Halifax" is the story of the first party of high school, drinking on Alexander Keith's grave. In "An Army of One", a woman attends the wedding of her male best friend (who she's been sleeping with for years). "All We Will Ever Be" is two sides of a woman from the perspective of the man she's just about to throw away and the other she's just sinking her teeth into.
In each of these stories, premise is realized into someting vivid and whole. Amy Jones' stories are easy to fall into, but complex enough that there is something new upon returning to them again and again.
Friday, November 13, 2009
Virginia Wolf on Louise Fitzhugh (seriously)
A very exciting parcel came to our house today! Finally, my long-awaited copy of Louise Fitzhugh-- a biography by the carefully named Virginia L. Wolf-- has arrived from BetterWorldBooks. There are not a lot of resources on Fitzhugh around, though the Purple Socks Tribute Site is pretty cool. But I was eager to learn more about this author (who wrote Harriet the Spy, for those of you not in the know), and this book had been lost in the depths of Robarts library, and the one copy in the Public Library system was not for circulation. So, obviously, another book purchase was necessary. I can't wait to read it.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Sloppy Shorthand
This article in The Guardian was a bit weird. Now, usually I'm all down with not maligning women's fiction, but popular fiction is popular fiction and Melissa Bank is not George Eliot, and I felt as though Harriet Evans was trying to tell me otherwise. But what Evans was trying to tell me is not the point here, rather that in her piece, she practices what I've come to call the sloppy shorthand of literary referencing.
She includes Dave Eggers in league with a number of other male writers who write "about how many women the protagonists have slept with, how many drugs they've done, what a crazy nihilistic time they're having in London / New York." Now, I've not read the other writers she mentions, but then I don't think Harriet Evans has read much Dave Eggers either.
Eggers does get tarred as something of a postmodern show-off by readers put off by his 2000 memoir A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius. To his credit, however, he wrote that book nearly a decade ago, and in the years since has created some terribly creative fiction and nonfiction (and has blurred boundaries between the two, and become a philanthropist, and written a movie I loved, and another that people are obsessed with, and countless other really amazing things, and he's done them well and with genuine class). Also, I thought A Heartbreaking Work... was remarkable for numerous reasons.
All this to say that Dave Eggers is sloppy shorthand for a male writer with flimsy chops who appeals to an idiot public.
Similarly, Zadie Smith. In fact, one of the commenters on Evans' pieces mentioned Smith, but that post has since been removed for being offensive. And there really is something about Zadie Smith that brings out offensive comments like no other writer since Margaret Atwood. Which is strange. Perhaps I can understand how a reader might not like White Teeth, for example, but I'm at a loss to explain how one wouldn't be somewhat impressed by its construction. I thought it was a fantastic novel, and was similarly moved by On Beauty, and I've found Smith's literary criticism to be the most compelling and fascinating I've read.
But it seems that Zadie Smith is sloppy shorthand for a girl writer who people like because she's pretty.
Then, there's Margaret Atwood, but I've talked about that before. Definitely Margaret Lawrence, who is unfairly derided by readers who weren't old enough when they read The Stone Angel or The Diviners. I suppose we could even include Shakespeare on this list, as people who've read just one or two of his plays can hold the strongest opinions on his oeuvre.
And poor John Irving, of course, perpetually accused of an obsession with wrestling, weird sex and bears.
Anyone else?
She includes Dave Eggers in league with a number of other male writers who write "about how many women the protagonists have slept with, how many drugs they've done, what a crazy nihilistic time they're having in London / New York." Now, I've not read the other writers she mentions, but then I don't think Harriet Evans has read much Dave Eggers either.
Eggers does get tarred as something of a postmodern show-off by readers put off by his 2000 memoir A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius. To his credit, however, he wrote that book nearly a decade ago, and in the years since has created some terribly creative fiction and nonfiction (and has blurred boundaries between the two, and become a philanthropist, and written a movie I loved, and another that people are obsessed with, and countless other really amazing things, and he's done them well and with genuine class). Also, I thought A Heartbreaking Work... was remarkable for numerous reasons.
All this to say that Dave Eggers is sloppy shorthand for a male writer with flimsy chops who appeals to an idiot public.
Similarly, Zadie Smith. In fact, one of the commenters on Evans' pieces mentioned Smith, but that post has since been removed for being offensive. And there really is something about Zadie Smith that brings out offensive comments like no other writer since Margaret Atwood. Which is strange. Perhaps I can understand how a reader might not like White Teeth, for example, but I'm at a loss to explain how one wouldn't be somewhat impressed by its construction. I thought it was a fantastic novel, and was similarly moved by On Beauty, and I've found Smith's literary criticism to be the most compelling and fascinating I've read.
But it seems that Zadie Smith is sloppy shorthand for a girl writer who people like because she's pretty.
Then, there's Margaret Atwood, but I've talked about that before. Definitely Margaret Lawrence, who is unfairly derided by readers who weren't old enough when they read The Stone Angel or The Diviners. I suppose we could even include Shakespeare on this list, as people who've read just one or two of his plays can hold the strongest opinions on his oeuvre.
And poor John Irving, of course, perpetually accused of an obsession with wrestling, weird sex and bears.
Anyone else?
Horizontal Parenting
I am very excited about the Parenting Method I 
have devised, and subsequent book I am going to self-publish about my Parenting Method (via lulu.com). My method is called Horizontal Parenting, and I've been practicing it for about six months now. Its core tenets are the five Ls-- 1) Lie down to breastfeed, 2) Lie down to soothe your crying babe by gently rocking your hips, 3) Lie down to have your baby sleep on your chest (contrary to everything the Back to Sleep people will tell you), 4) Lie down to play with your baby-- a popular game is lying on one's back and throwing a soft ball up to the ceiling again and again. The fun never stops. 5) Take time every day for yoga practice-- but only the savasana pose. (This last tenet doesn't start with L, but that's because it's the exception that proves the rule.)
The jury's still out on the advantages of horizontal parenting on child development, but my child seems to be developing fairly normally (save for her new, disturbing penchant for pinching the fat on my upper arms). For me, however, the advantages are multifold-- I never have a sore back, I get to sleep at night (albeit sometimes uncomfortably on my side), I get to lie on the couch and read or nap frequently throughout the day, and I get many opportunities to breathe in the sweet smell of my baby daughter's head.
As soon as I figure out how to cook dinner from a hammock, then I will really claim to have it all figured out.
have devised, and subsequent book I am going to self-publish about my Parenting Method (via lulu.com). My method is called Horizontal Parenting, and I've been practicing it for about six months now. Its core tenets are the five Ls-- 1) Lie down to breastfeed, 2) Lie down to soothe your crying babe by gently rocking your hips, 3) Lie down to have your baby sleep on your chest (contrary to everything the Back to Sleep people will tell you), 4) Lie down to play with your baby-- a popular game is lying on one's back and throwing a soft ball up to the ceiling again and again. The fun never stops. 5) Take time every day for yoga practice-- but only the savasana pose. (This last tenet doesn't start with L, but that's because it's the exception that proves the rule.)The jury's still out on the advantages of horizontal parenting on child development, but my child seems to be developing fairly normally (save for her new, disturbing penchant for pinching the fat on my upper arms). For me, however, the advantages are multifold-- I never have a sore back, I get to sleep at night (albeit sometimes uncomfortably on my side), I get to lie on the couch and read or nap frequently throughout the day, and I get many opportunities to breathe in the sweet smell of my baby daughter's head.
As soon as I figure out how to cook dinner from a hammock, then I will really claim to have it all figured out.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
There is no excuse
There is no excuse for the accompanying photo, except that my baby is adorable. Alright then, bookishly. I thumbed through the new Pierre Trudeau biography the other day, and now I am afraid I'm the only woman in Canada who never slept with him. He didn't even want me to live with him and have his child, like Liona Boyd (who is Liona Boyd?) on the cover of Hello. This may or may not be unfortunate. I just finished reading What Boys Like by Amy Jones (review forthcoming!) and have just started Mother Knows Best: Talking Back to the "Experts". Patricia has directed my attention to what seems to be the worst picture book ever: The Mischievous Mom at the Art Gallery by "high-octane duo" Rebecca Eckler and Erica Ehm. A new level of narcissism-- we have to be reflected in our kids' books now? "Finally — a picture book for the Starbucks-armed, BlackBerry-checking, gym-going working mother." Perhaps you're meant to read it on the treadmill. Chapters/Indigo includes a "Green Matters" option on its online catalogue, narrowing searches to books printed on FSC/Recycled Content. On the best Sesame Street songs (in honour of the show's fortieth birthday). They forgot ladybug picnic. Charlotte on The Children's Storefront, a neighbourhood institution that was lost in a fire last week. Rona Maynard's secrets to decades upon decades of marriage. I've been enjoying books/music site Sasquatch Radio. WriterGuy directed me towards the interesting "How Waterstones killed bookselling" (in light of my recent post about how Waterstones killed book buying, for me, at least). And I'm wondering if I'm the only one who starts carrying around my next book to be read once the current read is down to the last fifty pages or so. Indeed, if I don't have something fabulous to read within arm's length at all times, I do start to get a little nervous.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
All the processes of change
"All the processes of change, imagination, and learning ultimately depend on love. Human caregivers love their babies in a particularly intense and significant way. That love is one of the engines of human change. Parental love isn't just a primitive and primordial instinct, continuous with the nurturing behaviour of other animals (though certainly there are such continuities). Instead, our extended life as parents also plays a deep role in the emergence of the most sophisticated and characteristically human capacities. Our protracted immaturity is possible only because we can rely on the love of the people who take care of us. We can learn from the discoveries of earlier generations because those same loving caregivers invest in teaching us. It isn't just that without mothering humans would lack nurturance, warmth, and emotional security, They would also lack culture, history, morality, science and literature". --from The Philosophical Baby by Alison Gopnik
Monday, November 09, 2009
Dick Bruna and Miffy
I've been a fan of Dick Bruna ever since a trip home from England in 2003, where I was up early mornings due to time change and watched Miffy and Friends on Treehouse. As Miffy is quite popular in England, upon my return I was able to indulge in what has since become a pasttime: purchasing Miffy-branded commercial goods of all kinds. This hobby became very well-practised after I moved to Japan, and consequently, my house is full of glimpses of "that fucking rabbit" (as a friend of a friend once referred to Our Miff). Our recent trip to England yielded more opportunities to Miffy-shop, as we had a layover in Amsterdam (the Land of Miffy). Certainly, I voted with my Euros, and Miffy-Chan won. My friend Paul just sent me a link to this "Dutch Profiles: Dick Bruna" video, presuming I'd like it, and he was correct. And indeed, there is more to Miffy than the shopping, and I think this video makes that quite clear.
Sunday, November 08, 2009
Do we really need a cup of tea?
"Perhaps there can be too much making cups of tea, I thought, as I watched Miss Statham filling the heavy teapot. We had all had our supper, or were supposed to have had it, and were met together to discuss the arrangements for the Christmas bazaar. Did we really need a cup of tea? I even said as much to Miss Statham and she looked at me with a hurt, almost angry look. 'Do we need tea?' she echoed. 'But Miss Lathbury...' She sounded puzzled and distressed and I began to realize that my question had struck at something deep and fundamental. It was the kind of question that starts a landslide in the mind." --from Excellent Women by Barbara Pym
I am so glad to have finally read Barbara Pym, having been thinking about doing so since I read this piece on the Barbara Pym Society way back in 2007. Though when the book began, I wasn't sure-- it seemed dated, a little too concerned with high and low churches (between which I can't distinguish) and the sexual life of curates and vicars, and then perhaps about two chapters in, it became clear that Pym had a wicked sense of humour. And yes, her Englishness is quite delightful, for those of us who delight in English novels as we do, and that someone is putting the kettle on to boil every other page, and when the tea is too weak or too strong-- the agony of it all! Throughout the book, I adored her acuity and her awareness, even when her narrator had less of the same (or did she?).
And how wonderful to know that now I've got a wealth of unread Pym novels before me. Better still-- she is unfashionable and therefore the books will be readily available used (and I'll purchase them as such without compunction, for as Barbara Pym is dead, she's doesn't need the royalties).
I am so glad to have finally read Barbara Pym, having been thinking about doing so since I read this piece on the Barbara Pym Society way back in 2007. Though when the book began, I wasn't sure-- it seemed dated, a little too concerned with high and low churches (between which I can't distinguish) and the sexual life of curates and vicars, and then perhaps about two chapters in, it became clear that Pym had a wicked sense of humour. And yes, her Englishness is quite delightful, for those of us who delight in English novels as we do, and that someone is putting the kettle on to boil every other page, and when the tea is too weak or too strong-- the agony of it all! Throughout the book, I adored her acuity and her awareness, even when her narrator had less of the same (or did she?).
And how wonderful to know that now I've got a wealth of unread Pym novels before me. Better still-- she is unfashionable and therefore the books will be readily available used (and I'll purchase them as such without compunction, for as Barbara Pym is dead, she's doesn't need the royalties).
Friday, November 06, 2009
Lizzie Skurnick for President
In "Same Old Story", Skurnick writes: "But that's the problem with sexism. It doesn't happen because people -- male or female -- think women suck. It happens for the same reason a sommelier always pours a little more in a man's wine glass (check it!), or that that big, hearty man in the suit seems like he'd be a better manager. It's not that women shouldn't be up for the big awards. It's just that when it comes down to the wire, we just kinda feel like men . . . I don't know . . . deserve them.
The conservatives are right: affirmative action is huge blemish on the face of our nation. And until we stop giving awards to men who don't deserve them over women who do, we're sunk. Because our default is to somehow feel like Philip Roth's output is impressive while Joyce Carol Oates' is a punchline. Our default is to call John Updike a genius on the basis of four very wonderful books and many truly weird ones, while Margaret Atwood, with the same track record, is simply beloved. Our default is to title Ayelet Waldman's book, "Bad Mother," while her husband's is "Manhood for Amateurs." Our default is that women are small, men are universal. Well, I know men get sensitive if you call them small. But gentlemen, sometimes you are."
The conservatives are right: affirmative action is huge blemish on the face of our nation. And until we stop giving awards to men who don't deserve them over women who do, we're sunk. Because our default is to somehow feel like Philip Roth's output is impressive while Joyce Carol Oates' is a punchline. Our default is to call John Updike a genius on the basis of four very wonderful books and many truly weird ones, while Margaret Atwood, with the same track record, is simply beloved. Our default is to title Ayelet Waldman's book, "Bad Mother," while her husband's is "Manhood for Amateurs." Our default is that women are small, men are universal. Well, I know men get sensitive if you call them small. But gentlemen, sometimes you are."
Thursday, November 05, 2009
The Defiant Ones
Big thanks to the reader who pointed me towards "The Defiant Ones: Children's books, parents and discipline" in The New Yorker. What do books including Ian Falconer's Olivia Series, David Shannon's No David, and Mem Fox's Harriet, You'll Drive Me Wild tell us about the current state of child-rearing? That apparently, parents are powerless, and kids are adorably manipulative. Admittedly, I think, this is a limited prism through which to view these books, but the article is still pretty fascinating. Recapped here, in blog form, with a slide show, oh my!
Oh, and Olivia. I really desperately admire that pig, and think that any little girl would do well to take on more than a few of her personality traits, except for any little girl that I'd have to live with, of course.
Oh, and Olivia. I really desperately admire that pig, and think that any little girl would do well to take on more than a few of her personality traits, except for any little girl that I'd have to live with, of course.
The new Nick Hornby novel is good!
A long time ago, before you were born, dude, when I was still single, and life was rubbish... I thought that High Fidelity was a romantic comedy. Part of this was because I wanted to marry John Cusack, of course, but it was also wishful thinking-- that loving insensitive men who didn't love you back could possibly constitute romance or even comedy, because I was really eager to construct for myself a personal narrative arc.
And then I grew up, but actually, I'd gone off Nick Hornby before that, when I made the mistake of tramping through Europe with only How to be Good in my backpack. Idiotic, I know. And I haven't read anything he's written since, until his newest novel, Juliet, Naked. My interest was sparked by this piece at the Guardian books blog, that the new novel was "not as predictable as you think". And I really, really loved it.
Partly because FINALLY, a popular fiction book that isn't just a mess of plot and character dressed up as a novel!! I've really lately been longing for the likes of this. And Nick Hornby has grown up too. He knows exactly what he's doing here, doesn't have to try too hard, and the result is remarkably assured. Juliet, Naked is funny, engaging, interestingly intertextual, smart and current. It is decidedly a Nick Hornby novel, so if you never liked him before, don't bother, but if you liked him back when he did what does best-- well, he's done it again.
And I'm now barrelling through my to-be-read shelf. Before that, I finished My Cousin Rachel by Daphne Du Maurier, which I enjoyed very much, and am now about to start my first Barbara Pym with Excellent Women.
And then I grew up, but actually, I'd gone off Nick Hornby before that, when I made the mistake of tramping through Europe with only How to be Good in my backpack. Idiotic, I know. And I haven't read anything he's written since, until his newest novel, Juliet, Naked. My interest was sparked by this piece at the Guardian books blog, that the new novel was "not as predictable as you think". And I really, really loved it.
Partly because FINALLY, a popular fiction book that isn't just a mess of plot and character dressed up as a novel!! I've really lately been longing for the likes of this. And Nick Hornby has grown up too. He knows exactly what he's doing here, doesn't have to try too hard, and the result is remarkably assured. Juliet, Naked is funny, engaging, interestingly intertextual, smart and current. It is decidedly a Nick Hornby novel, so if you never liked him before, don't bother, but if you liked him back when he did what does best-- well, he's done it again.
And I'm now barrelling through my to-be-read shelf. Before that, I finished My Cousin Rachel by Daphne Du Maurier, which I enjoyed very much, and am now about to start my first Barbara Pym with Excellent Women.
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
Exploring the Other Side
I gave up hating newspaper columnists ages ago, and I don't want Margaret Wente to be fired. But her recent essay on her new book only made clear to me the fundamental problem with her approach. People call her on being deliberately provocative, to which she thumbs her nose: "Would it be better if I deliberately set out to be inoffensive?" As though there were only the two extremes, and perhaps Wente is satisfied with making people angry, with provoking that response, but I can't help think a great writer can do better than that. If conventional wisdom is really so off base, if "exploring the other side" is so important, shouldn't she do it more carefully? Shouldn't she actually "explore" instead of committing columnly acts of mischief? Has a Margaret Wente column ever changed anyone's mind?
Provocation doesn't make people think, rather, it puts up walls. Which is one reason I'm not as frightened as I should be by American right-wing media (but that might just be because I don't have cable).
Provocation doesn't make people think, rather, it puts up walls. Which is one reason I'm not as frightened as I should be by American right-wing media (but that might just be because I don't have cable).
Monday, November 02, 2009
On poetry and verse
We've been delighting in verse since Harriet was born. We've read Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats, When We Were Very Young, Jelly Belly and Alligator Pie by Dennis Lee, and we've just started Till All the Stars Have Fallen: Canadian Poems for Children. Reading the poems aloud has been tremendous fun, and Harriet likes to listen (most of the time), and I've enjoyed rediscovering poems I read years ago and reading many others for the first time-- I'd never read the Eliot or A.A. Milne before. I do wonder, however, how much the fun we're having with verse constitutes anything to do with poetry proper. Will the one lead to the other for Harriet, and for ourselves? And what's the relationship between the two? Is verse the pop music of literature? How does one cultivate an appreciation for poetry in a child? By which I mean, what is the way from Macavity the Mystery Cat to Prufrock?
Sunday, November 01, 2009
A tough time with popular fiction
Perhaps I've finally gotten clever, or the world's gotten dumber, and I'm not sure which, but either way, I am having a tough time with popular fiction. Last Thursday, once again, I had to abandon a novel for being complete and utter crap. For being sloppy, poorly edited, not completely making sense, being implausible, and patronizing in that it was expecting me not to notice. At first, as I was struggling through, I put it down to the last three books I'd read before it having been difficult but also extraordinary, and maybe popular fiction in general just doesn't bring the same return on investment. But no, actually. I've read some fine popular fiction this past while, that might not have demanded much of me as a reader but it didn't ask me to kindly avert my eyes while it turned into a train wreck of a book either.
I feel that as a writer myself, who has written two significantly flawed (albeit not without their virtues but still, there is a good reason they're unpublished...) novels, and many utterly awful short stories, maybe I'm just better attuned to a crappy book than the average reader. "Oh, I see what the writer did there," I find myself thinking, and I wonder: why didn't an editor pick up on this? Or do they still have editors? Perhaps they disappeared when the bottom fell out? And if so, could someone please get them to come back?
This post is far more grumpy than my usual fare, but I was annoyed. My reading time is hard-fought for these days. As I've noted already, I'm trading my daughter's development of positive sleep habits for time to read, as I allow myself to be napped on, but her naps don't come easy. And how will I answer when she grows up to ask me what I have to show for the shitty novels for which she sacrificed the ability to fall asleep anywhere but on her mother's chest?
Or maybe I'm just crazy. Because I go searching the internet to validate my opinions, and I find that crappy novel of the day has received a glowing review in the New York Times (though never, I note, from Michiko Kakutani). And when I do blog searches, I find readers loving the stuff. There is usually a note, also, that says, "Would be great for book clubs." Which, really, says nothing very good about book clubs.
I don't think I'm crazy though. The UK papers tend to hate the books I do, and there is always a dissatisfied blogger for every enamoured one. Which goes to show, I suppose, that we all expect very different things from the books we read, but sometimes I do wish readers might expect a little more. And that editors would too, and publishers, and authors of themselves?
But, as Caroline Adderson once wrote (and I love this quote): ""Of course, the best antidote to the disappointment of the literary life is to read." And I managed much consolation with a weekend spent with The Sweet Edge by Alison Pick and Tokyo Fiancee by Amelie Nothup, both of which I can earnestly recommend.
I feel that as a writer myself, who has written two significantly flawed (albeit not without their virtues but still, there is a good reason they're unpublished...) novels, and many utterly awful short stories, maybe I'm just better attuned to a crappy book than the average reader. "Oh, I see what the writer did there," I find myself thinking, and I wonder: why didn't an editor pick up on this? Or do they still have editors? Perhaps they disappeared when the bottom fell out? And if so, could someone please get them to come back?
This post is far more grumpy than my usual fare, but I was annoyed. My reading time is hard-fought for these days. As I've noted already, I'm trading my daughter's development of positive sleep habits for time to read, as I allow myself to be napped on, but her naps don't come easy. And how will I answer when she grows up to ask me what I have to show for the shitty novels for which she sacrificed the ability to fall asleep anywhere but on her mother's chest?
Or maybe I'm just crazy. Because I go searching the internet to validate my opinions, and I find that crappy novel of the day has received a glowing review in the New York Times (though never, I note, from Michiko Kakutani). And when I do blog searches, I find readers loving the stuff. There is usually a note, also, that says, "Would be great for book clubs." Which, really, says nothing very good about book clubs.
I don't think I'm crazy though. The UK papers tend to hate the books I do, and there is always a dissatisfied blogger for every enamoured one. Which goes to show, I suppose, that we all expect very different things from the books we read, but sometimes I do wish readers might expect a little more. And that editors would too, and publishers, and authors of themselves?
But, as Caroline Adderson once wrote (and I love this quote): ""Of course, the best antidote to the disappointment of the literary life is to read." And I managed much consolation with a weekend spent with The Sweet Edge by Alison Pick and Tokyo Fiancee by Amelie Nothup, both of which I can earnestly recommend.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)