Fifty Books in Fifty Weeks
In Which the author switches her non-fiction addiction and reads some of the best books since the invention of the printing press.Archive for May, 2008
I’m the boss of this blog.
What have I been doing in the last week? What have I been reading? Not classics. I started, finished and forgot Chuck Palahniuk’s new book the day I rented it from my library. I went out for drinks with some girls I hadn’t seen in months. I read a book called “Pride & Prescience”, a Jane Austen meta-fiction mystery starring Elizabeth Darcy – palatable, but also forgettable. I bought a mandoline to slice vegetables so thin you can see through them. I read Kazu Kibuishi’s “Amulet: the Stonekeeper” (a comic book), which is awesome. I went for a walk or two in the finally-nice weather. I finished “A Short History of Anxiety”.
So, now I’m reading the Satanic Verses by Salman Rushdie. It’s not technically a classic. But, on publication, it did earn the author a fatwa from the Ayatollah Khomeini, who called for his murder by any faithful Muslim with the means and opportunity. So I don’t care if it’s a classic or not. Also, it’s really interesting and mysterious so far.
Since this is supposed to be a project in which I am reading works I want to emulate in my own writing, I am tweaking this project a little. I’m not going to be as concerned with a book’s status as I am with its value. My goal is to avoid complete boredom: 50 *intriguing* works of fiction in 50 (ish) weeks. No chick lit, no action-movie plot lines, no predictable mysteries, and most of all, no more classics selected mostly for how quickly I can read them. I’ll still try to give preference to classics, but if I scour the shelves and can’t find something that I want to read, I’ll pick something quality but not necessarily classic. Deal?
Snapshot 2
Bonk: The Curious Coupling of Science and Sex, by Mary Roach
This Common Secret, by Susan Wicklund
Snuff, by Chuck Palahniuk
Not Quite What I Was Planning: Six-Word Memoirs by Writers Famous & Obscure
The Satanic Verses, by Salman Rushdie
A Brief History of Anxiety, by Patricia Pearson
Lost Scriptures: Books that Did Not Make it into the New Testament, by Bart D. Ehrman
And, like 6 different vegetarian cookbooks
The Awakening
Kate Chopin’s “The Awakening” was more interesting to me this time around than it was in high school. In high school, you haven’t had opportunity to make many serious concessions to your dignity. I mean, the most momentous problem with compromise in high school occurred during freshman year when your guidance counselor insisted that you were suicidal because you wore your Suicidal Tendencies tee shirt to school once a week. ”It’s a band,” you said. ”It’s a uniform!” she said. ”Don’t worry about me,” you said, considering not wearing the tee shirt again to avoid this kind of grown-up hysteria. The “considering” felt like a huge violation of your values, so you kept wearing the tee shirt. After all, they were a pretty awesome band.
After high school I had planned to forego college and begin my writing career immediately. The last high school article I wrote for the student page of our local paper was titled “College: Who Needs It”. However, it only took 5 rejection notices from publishers and magazines to make me panic and apply for spring semester classes. Going to college was my first Big Compromise, even though leaving my parents’ home turned out to be a necessary step to establishing my independence, not to mention that my degrees have helped me to get like…jobs and stuff. So that worked out okay in the long run.
During my last year of college, I stumbled into a relationship with a person who tried to turn me into someone he liked, rather than really liking me much to begin with. When I began to rebel against his image of me, it fell apart for very good reason, and to my betterment. Wasting a couple of years with a person who wanted to mold me into his image was my second Big Compromise. Fortunately, I got that kind of folly out of my experience early enough: my ~amor de ma vie~ is someone who helps me identify and pursue my own idea of myself, and I hope that my efforts at doing the same for him are efficacious.
The Great Compromise, the one I identify with Edna Pontelier’s stifling marriage, was my job. I worked a job sitting in a 5×5 cube all day doing busywork…for six years. I thought the job was okay when I got a raise or a promotion, but raises only satisfy a person’s psychic needs for a month or so, and you can coast on the thrill of promotion for only a few months beyond that. Then you start retreating to the sick room for midday naps and no one asks where you were. Then you spend 6 hours a day emailing or writing a short story or browsing for new jobs and otherwise avoiding work however possible. After all, your real work can be finished in about 3 hours a day. That leaves 5 that you either have to fill with shenanigans or made-up work. Then your co-worker gets a promotion and her position remains unfilled for two years, which means you have to pick up all the work she can’t do anymore, which means you’re working hardcore 5-8 hours a day, and it begins to wear on you. The trade-off for working in a soul-sucking office environment is that you have plenty of free time to make friends and relax, right? You discover that your job, when it’s a full-time job with no time for play, is designed to drain you of your life force so you become a company zombie. You have just enough free time to realize that you’re offended by this imposition on your humanity – glued to a chair and the telephone and email, getting paid what now seems like a pittance for the vast amount of unfulfilling work you’re doing. Then you begin coming home depressed every day. Then you either implode or get out of there. This was the third and final Great Compromise. Now I make $50 (net) less per paycheck, come home stress-free, and spend my entire day with books and people who like books. To me, this is what freedom from job tyranny feels like: going to work at a place where I’d enjoy spending 8 hours even if I wasn’t being paid for my taskwork.
So this book? Edna Pontelier’s transformation? It resonated with me. It even included the discussion on art that I have been trained to look for in every story, delivered here by Edna Pontelier’s pianist friend, Madame Reisz:
“To be an artist includes much; one must possess many gifts–absolute gifts–which have not been acquired by one’s own effort. And, moreover, to succeed, the artist must possess the courageous soul…The soul that dares and defies.”
I have 43 more weeks of this…
In case you haven’t noticed, I have been reading books under an inch thick lately, playing catchup from Ulysses. But I’m bored, which is the surest route to failure in my universe. I’m finishing up “The Awakening & Stories” by Kate Chopin today. Does anyone have recommendations that might restore my faith in classic lit again?
Let’s talk about nerds.
Washington Irving is a father of American literature. He may also have been the inventor of the stereotype of the “nerd” in American culture, which is almost as good as electricity, the telephone and the computer, or at least as ubiquitous. Everybody knows who Ichabod Crane is, right?
I just finished The Sketch Book, which was a huge sensation in its time. Washington Irving traveled extensively and earned his reputation as a ladies man; he was often found carousing and making trouble but he was popular, kind of like Paris Hilton. In this book, there are several “stories” connected in that they are a collected by fictional character called Diedrich Knickerbocker, who provides occasional asides. The stories are what you might call light entertainment, and one or two of them reveal Irving’s strangely pathological hatred of Thomas Jefferson. It just so happens that the non-fiction book I was reading parallel to this (Nerds, by child psychologist David Anderegg) mentions one of the stories from this book: the wildly famous The Legend of Sleepy Hollow.
You remember the Disney version of the Legend of Sleepy Hollow: Ichabod Crane is ridiculous. In the story, he reads too much (in Sleepy Hollow, “at all” being too much); he’s socially awkward; his strange appearance earns him a kind of muffled disrespect from the townsfolk; he’s completely oblivious to the fact that a guy like him will never get the girl he (and every other guy in town) crushes on. When he is either killed or run out of town (no one knows which, and their indifference to solving the mystery of his fate reveals Crane’s devalued status) they simply burn his books and clothes and get on with their lives. Brom Bones gets the girl and everyone lives happily ever after. Ichabod Crane? Oh right, he was that annoying teacher who was always either reading or eating. Wonder what happened to him? Oh well.
Washington Irving, obviously, didn’t create our modern idea of the nerd single-handedly. He had a little help from Ralph Waldo Emerson. This is from “The American Scholar”:
Meek young men grow up in libraries, believing it their duty to accept the views, which Cicero, which Locke, which Bacon, have given, forgetful that Cicero, Locke, and Bacon were only young men in libraries, when they wrote these books…Hence, instead of Man Thinking, we have the bookworm.
This dichotomous struggle, men of thought versus men of action, in other words, nerds versus jocks, made its appearance shortly after the establishment of the U.S. government. Thomas Jefferson was roundly condemned by his contemporaries as being “too French” (read: a bookworm). John Quincy Adams was bested in the presidential election of 1828 by the uneducated Andrew Jackson, who won based on the idea that (as Richard Hofstadter puts it) “John Quincy Adams can write, but Andrew Jackson can fight.” Not much has changed.
In the much-disputed 2000 presidential election, Al Gore took a media beating for being too book-smart. No one ever denied that he had the brains and experience for the presidency. It was just that he was such a dork. I mean, Gore knew stuff that people had to *look up* if they wanted to know what he was referring to & stuff. How lame. And if Bush, with his perennial “jock” persona, had not been so affable, he would barely (if ever) have gotten out of the political gate, much less so narrowly winning (depending upon your interpretation of the contested outcome of Florida) the highest office in the U.S. – qualifications schwalifications: Bush was charming. Gore was teacher’s pet. Although they were matched in intelligence and capability, what the former Vice President could not do as well as Bill Clinton was to woo the media. The point being that people who come off as cool (read: not nerds) tend to get ahead in the American politics and entertainment industries. You can be brilliant, but if you are *only* a genius, tough luck geek.
Washington Irving himself had this kind of nerd/jock duality playing out inside him, or so I suspect after reading his biographical details from the afterword of The Sketch Book. When he was little, all the grown-ups around him took great pride in his remarkable intelligence, but by the time he came of age, he had shed his bookishness in favor of nice clothes, attractive women and a life of idle merrymaking. Maybe more than he knew, this battle between intelligence and popularity played out in his stories and eventually in American culture itself. I daresay that we all kind of live with this struggle, to be true to our inner nerd or to be the coolest kid on the block, and we most often end up with some kind of suitable compromise.
“Ah, we shall get on together, Mr. Fogg and I!”
So says Mr. Phileas Fogg’s fastidious Parisian manservant, Jean Passepartout. Why? The dude just wants some peace and quiet and Fogg is the perfect master to provide it. ”There was no study, nor were there books, which would have been quite useless to Mr. Fogg; for at the Reform two libraries, one of general literature and the other of law and politics, were at his service.” One, Jules Verne writes like me (in the “too many commas” sense) and Two, the protagonist prefers the library: Three, I heart Phileas Fogg.
Around the World in Eighty Days is probably what you’d expect it to be. Phileas Fogg is the Indiana Jones of seventeenth century literature: he’s cute, eccentric and he always gets the girl. He’s also kind of funny, which is essential in lit crush material. At one point, some dude exclaims at Fogg’s generosity-slash-willingness to adventure forth to save a lady from her tribal customs (in particular, the one in which a wife is required to be burned alive with her husband’s corpse if he chances to predecease her). The dude says, “Why, you are a man of heart!” Fogg responds, “Sometimes, when I have the time.”
I won’t reveal whether Fogg & company win their bet to traverse the world in eighty days, but if you missed this book in junior high like I did, I will recommend it even if you’re not trying to read 50 books in 50 weeks because above all else, this book was fun, which is a welcome change from some of the dark stuff I have read recently (for reference, Stendahl’s The Red and the Black is a novel contemporary with this one, and is far more dreary and philosophical).
Verne writes this book with an eye for the perfect detail; he’s a bit of a minimalist. He combines a travelogue with bizarre adventures and manages to make the reader sympathize with Fogg although he seems as inscrutable at the end as he was at the beginning. That takes skillz. The interesting thing about this book is the way Verne merges the travel narrative with the story; his description of San Francisco was all of two paragraphs long and I was transported there. The genius of Jules Verne lies in his ability to distill what could be too much text into the most pertinent features of the description so that you see what he sees without losing interest because he spends too many words on it: something I *definitely* need to take from him.
Snapshot: May 1, 2008
Periodically I will start doing these “snapshots” to keep myself honest: a list of what is currently checked out on my library card. I have been cheating and reading non-fiction concurrently with my classics project, pretty much all along. I habitually fall prey to cool book covers and interesting dust jacket intros.
The following is what I currently have checked out of the library. I am actively reading at least five of the books right now for some reason. I keep switching between them like I have multiple personalities.
Amigurumi animals: 15 patterns and dozens of techniques for creating cute crochet creatures (p.s. I don’t know how to crochet)
Wild nights!: stories about the last days of Poe, Dickinson, Twain, James and Hemingway (Joyce Carol Oates)
The solitary vice: against reading (Mikita Brottman)
Nerds: who they are and why we need more of them (David Anderegg)
Letter to a Christian Nation (Sam Harris)
Amulet. Book 1 (Kazu Kibuishi)
Vegetarian bistro: 250 authentic French regional recipes (Marlena Spieler)
Tess of the D’Ubervilles (Thomas Hardy)
The Awakening (Kate Chopin)
Around the world in 80 days (Jules Verne)
The 4-hour workweek (Timothy Ferriss)
(CD) The very best of Aretha Franklin
(CD) The flying club cup / Beirut
(CD) Never mind the bollocks, here’s the Sex Pistols
(CD) If you can believe your eyes & ears / the Mamas & the Papas
Checking Ulysses off my to-do list
I have a confession. For all this talk of Joyce is a genius, language is amazing, well worth the effort, blah-blah-blah, ultimately I didn’t really love this book. I appreciate it in the way you appreciate Thanksgiving dinner: you definitely don’t want to eat it every day, and to be honest, pizza delivery might have been tastier after all. The pomp and consequence of Ulysses is something to behold; the elevation of the everyday to mythological quest status changed the novel forever; this book is awesome when you think about it. The problem for me arises in that it is just too darn long. Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man uses some of the same stylistic tricks, but it’s around 600 pages shorter. In small doses, the style is interesting, enjoyable even. But in a work this long, it just wears a person out (especially when she’s trying to read 50 book in 50 weeks). I *get* Ulysses, but I don’t love it, at least not in the way I read it. Yeah, it took me over a month to finish it, but even that wasn’t a slow enough pace. If you are going to read it, I would suggest doing it in small chunks and plan to spend a year of weekends on it. As I said in the other posts, it is worth putting effort into, and there are parts that are transcendentally good and for those parts it is worth reading. But just like your day and my day, the depicted day of June 16, 1904 is constructed with pockets of tedium, annoyance and desperation. Be prepared to experience it along with the characters.
Lonesome Leo
Leopold Bloom is the Odysseus figure in Ulysses. However, he functions almost as a refutation of the Homeric hero who survives by his wits and strength! who overcomes all adversaries with might! who destroys them utterly! In The Odyssey, Bloom would have discovered his wife’s affair with Blazes Boylan and murdered him summarily. In Ulysses, Bloom quietly comes home to his unfaithful wife whom he loves without bothering himself with any “masculine pride”.
Ulysses is an epic celebrating the mundane, the heroic in the ordinary man, an outsider, who accepts his life and gleans from it the happiness he has in his reach. The invisible striver is the antagonist in this story, the man who skulks around town seducing women and picking up what he can while giving the least of himself possible. This is Blazes Boylan, Molly’s suitor.
Even though Leopold Bloom has a skewed idea of his wife Molly, of what she wants and who she is, he thinks of her constantly. Their intimacy is limited, but he loves her with a tenderness characteristic of a hero who is the antithesis of the warrior archetype. Joyce seems to hint that there is a ravine between husband and wife that can never be fully bridged, but that this does not diminish the love between them.
Bloom is a sympathetic character, despite his lascivious fantasies and his strange inner rantings. Part of this is because Joyce has made him a figure of tragic loneliness. At one point Bloom thinks, “A fellow could live on his lonesome all his life.” This is key to his roamings. He misses his daughter Milly, off pursuing her education and career; he has a longing for his dead son, for whom he allows Dedalus to be a stand-in. But most of all, he feels the distance between himself and Molly. As I said when I started this book, Ulysses is partly about how you can never fully know someone else. But it is also about how we interact with and forgive flawed people precisely because we know on some level that we have several forgiveness-worthy flaws as well.
Bloom indulges in a funk, he feels his role as outsider – alienation from the church, in his career, in Irish society which is dominated by Catholicism. Just before lunch, he laments, “This is the very worst hour of the day. Vitality. Dull, gloomy: hate this hour. Feel as if I had been eaten and spewed.” He steps into a diner and out again after a vivid description of his disgust at people eating like animals. ”Out. I hate dirty eaters…Every fellow for his own, tooth and nail. Gulp. Grub. Gulp. Gobstuff….Eat or be eaten, Kill! Kill!” This illustrates yet another allusion to his complete difference from the Homeric hero.
It is worth mentioning that the scene at the end of Ulysses feels almost like the climax of Romeo and Juliet. Instead of a double suicide, the star-crossed lovers engage in separate, silent prayers, a kind of double-resolution of their loyalties and loves. Bloom comes home to a sleeping wife, kisses her bottom, and silently goes to sleep. Molly wakes and finds him asleep, thinks on her love for him, offering a conquest that Bloom may never realize he has over her. This is not the conquest of the Odyssey, but is a quiet, dignified conquest, the conquest that two people have over one another in love and mutual adoration.
When all is said and done, Ulysses is a simple love story.