My Photo

Search

  • Search our site
    Google

    WWW
    supremefiction.com

Books

Blog powered by TypePad

Eat, Pray, Love

Dara writes:

Elizabeth Gilbert, the author of the best-selling book of spiritual exploration, Eat, Pray, Love, has a remarkably engaging voice. Rarely does the conversational tone translate effectively into prose. But Ms. Gilbert nails it. Her style is a marvel of humor, sassiness, and folksiness. In a word: irresistible. And why should one resist? Readers haven't, as her book has sold a gazillion copies.

Good for her...and for Jhumpa Lahiri? I noticed an interesting similarity between Gilbert's book and Lahiri's latest. Both end on a beach--the former near Bali and the latter in Thailand--around the time of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. Lahiri's relentlessly fatalistic outlook dictates that the catastrophe will claim one of her characters, while Gilbert's doe-eyed optimism requires that her characters remain safe. Is there any way Lahiri was rebutting Gilbert in the end of her work? Probably not. But I like to contemplate the possibility.

Lahiri, and Indian American writer, has her antennae up for racism. Gilbert devotes one third of her book to time she spent in an Ashram in India--time during which she describes Indian culture as delightful and Indian girls as eminently charming. Her descriptions are a tad prone to caricature--which perhaps irked Lahiri? Perhaps she wanted to puncture the pretty bubble Gilbert draws around South Asia.

The similar descriptions that conclude their books struck me. Lahiri's character Kaushik lowers himself over the side of the boat and "lets go." Later we learn the tsunami claimed him. Gilbert--herself a character in her book--and her lover Felipe dip into the water from their boat and stride safely to shore. Many people dismiss Gilbert's book as whiny chick-lit. Perhaps Lahiri is one of those who can resist Gilbert's charms? Shunning fantasy, Lahiri plants a flag in the territory of realism.

Unaccustomed Earth

Dara writes:

The work of Indian American novelist and short story writer Jhumpa Lahiri is chick lit for intellectuals. Reading her work is as easy as but infinitely more rewarding than reading Us magazine. I slip right in and walk away fortified, not enervated, as I feel after reading the tabloids.

Which is not to say that Lahiri’s work is at all sensational or exploitative. Just that it grabs my attention instantly. I started her latest book, a story collection, on a plane. I needed to dispel my fear of crashing. I immersed myself in the book and within seconds was in Seattle, where Unaccustomed Earth begins.

What makes Lahiri’s writing so seductive? Love, for one thing. It is not just that Lahiri writes about love, though she often does. It is that she evinces love for her characters and her readers. She is generous. She takes care and time to exhibit every detail of her characters’ lives.

For another thing, Lahiri speaks plainly. She seems constitutionally incapable of being pretentious on the page, nor does she ever confuse us with prose that is experimental. Like Allegra Goodman, a writer I adore, she is telling a story. Period. Other reviewers, such as Liesl Schillinger in the New York Times Book Review, have noted how Lahiri’s mechanics are invisible, how she seems to clear a path for her characters to develop on their own. I think this quality is what allows the reader to immerse herself in the stories as though in a warm, perfumed bath.

Finally, there is Lahiri’s gift for detail. Her language might be plain, but it is always accurate. In re-reading her latest book, I noticed that no scene was sketched-in vaguely. Lahiri observes her surroundings with a scientist’s meticulousness.

Funny, because she writes an awful lot about scientists. One complaint I have about her latest book is that her stories have become a bit familiar: the immigrant Indian family that lives in a Boston suburb. The father works at MIT. The ungrateful Americanized kids resent their parents’ immigrant ways. Yet family stories, like life, are always the same in principle—they differ in the myriad details. Reading Lahiri’s work reassures me. It tells me that my life, in all its banality, is worthwhile.

Ruma is the protagonist of this latest book’s title story. She is a stay-at-home mom to her young son Akash and is pregnant with her second child. She used to be a career woman but that changed when she and her family moved to Seattle. Her father travels and has done so since Ruma’s mother died. When her father comes to visit Seattle, Ruma’s husband says they should invite the father to live with them. But Ruma feels quite conflicted about this idea; when he comes, his visit evokes many memories, not all of which are pleasant. She finally decides in favor of inviting her father to stay, but he won’t. He doesn’t say why. In the end, she figures it out and helps her father with a small act of kindness so poignant it made me cry. Lahiri’s bold emphasis on the everyday things that change us makes her BIG ending all the more incongruous.

Lahiri’s new collection entails two parts. The first part contains four stories, of which Ruma’s tale is one, and the second includes three stories that are connected. In the first of these three connected tales, boy meets girl. This story, “Once in a Lifetime,” is told from the girl’s perspective. The second, “Year’s End,” is told years later from the boy’s perspective. Quickly we guess what the third part will be: boy and girl will meet. And they do, in Europe as it happens, after decades apart.

Despite that the structure is obvious, it propelled me on: I pulsed with anticipation for part three. Still, I know that Lahiri likes to be true to life, so I didn’t expect a ride into the sunset. I needed only recall Gogol’s tortuous path in Lahiri’s last book, The Namesake, to confirm that this is a writer who does not wrap her endings up in a nice bow. Melodrama does not have much place in a Lahiri story. Imagine my surprise, then, at the whopping, deus ex machina conclusion of “Going Ashore,” the last story in Unaccustomed Earth.

One thing that had already made me wary of the second part of Unaccustomed Earth was its political nature. The male protagonist, Kaushik, is a war photographer who laments the plight of the Palestinians. Support for the Palestinian movement is a favorite cause of the Left, and an inflammatory one at that. Lahiri’s stories are so quiet that the presence of this cause celebre jarred me.

I will not give away the ending, but suffice it to say that Lahiri imposes on Kaushik a global event. In the context of the story it rises completely out of the blue. For such a fine, understated writer, this seems highly uncharacteristic. It utterly took me out of the story—literally. I was lying in bed reading it and bolted upright with indignation.

I have been surprised that other reviewers have not hit on this ill-fitting device. Michiko Kakutani in the Times does note the sensational ending, but says: “In the hands of a less talented writer it’s an ending that might have seemed melodramatic or contrived, but as rendered by Ms. Lahiri it possesses the elegiac and haunting power of tragedy.”

If Lahiri’s work is “chick lit,” it is of the most refined order—which makes this tabloid ending all the more unexpected.

'Like the good guys winning a shoot out'

James writes:

Sorry if I'm riding a little high today. Over at the Social Affairs Unit blog, published out of London, Christie Davies has written a stellar review of The Dartmouth Review Pleads Innocent, the anthology I edited with Stefan Beck.


The Dartmouth Review Pleads Innocent is the inspiring story of a conservative student journal that took on the oppressive left-liberal administration at Dartmouth College, New Hampshire, an American Ivy League University founded in 1769, and won. It is a very American story, rather like the good guys winning a shoot out in a western. It couldn't happen in supine Britain because we lack America's free institutions, confidence in private initiative and willingness to fight. Once upon a time we had all these good qualities but now we are hollowed out.

You can catch the entire review here. Christie well captures the spirit of the newspaper. It's a quirky publication. Dara and I just spent the weekend in Hanover, New Hampshire and had dinner with the Review's 40 or so undergraduate editors and staffers--plus a certain Jeffrey Hart. I am pleased to report that the newspaper is thriving. (You can check out the Review's website here). Love it or hate it, the newspaper remains strong after over 25 years. You've got to respect that. (And I think it's even earned Dara's respect.)

One of the surprises of the evening came out of a conversation I had with Professor Hart, Dartmouth's most famous conservative academic. It's well known to readers of this weblog that Hart has fallen out with the Bush administration and the evangelical wing of the conservative movement. If you haven't done so already, you can read my profile of Hart from the Dartmouth Alumni Magazine.

Anyway, the big surprise of the evening came out of Hart's comments on the presidential primaries. Who would Hart be supporting in 2008, I wondered? McCain (whom he backed in 2000)? Giuliani, perhaps? No, the answer is Obama, followed by Edwards. In fact, Hart says he will support any Democrat candidate who has the ability to unseat a Republican. That also goes for the Senate and House. Even if (birthday boy) Abraham Lincoln were running, Hart says, he's voting Democrat until Republicans dissociate themselves from their evangelical base.

Strong words from a one-time speechwriter for Nixon and Reagan.

Down with Boomer Humor

James writes (cross-post with The New Criterion):

I attended a lunch talk today sponsored by a libertarian non-profit think tank. The guest speaker was the boomer humorist P. J. O'Rourke. I must say, he wasn't all that good. The subject of the talk was O'Rourke's new book on Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. I thought that the conclusion of this book review from the Baltimore Sun pretty much summed up my own feelings about the performance:


O'Rourke's book is a peculiar kind of satire. By turns smart-alecky and oracular, it gives readers something to do instead of thinking. O'Rourke professes to share Smith's skepticism about all-encompassing systems, but he applies the economic theories of The Wealth of Nations indiscriminately, indifferent to the changing realities of a post-industrial age of information. Laughs aside, O'Rourke's "Cliff's Notes" to Adam Smith are an abridgment to nowhere.

Am I the only one who thinks that the Rolling Stone-National Lampoon literary style of over-enthusiastic, underwhelming libertarianism hasn't aged well? I had the same feeling when reading The Real Animal House: The Awesomely Depraved Saga of the Fraternity That Inspired the Movie by Chris Miller, another National Lampooner. In Miller's case, the thought of a writer who is eligible for the AAPR discount basing his literary career on copping a feel 50 years ago stuck me as rather sad and pathetic. Here the stories were more lecherous than charming (unlike the movie Animal House, which for many reasons remains a masterpiece).

O'Rourke can't bank on his youth any longer either, and his sort of hip out-of-it-ness strikes me as flat. O'Rourke prides himself on still using a typewriter. I find it more lazy than charming when culture writers choose not to use the internet. Appealing to what he perceived to be our own sloth, at his luncheon talk, O'Rourke promised to read The Wealth of Nations "so you don't have to." By the end of the event, after a three course feeding of sweetened half-observations, I came to wonder if O'Rourke had read The Wealth of Nations himself.

Compared to the boomer humorist typing away on his Selectric II, I'll take Wikipedia any day.

As an aside, if you are looking for a truly stimulating non-profit program of talks and events, with speakers ranging from Mark Steyn to David Pryce-Jones to Andrew Roberts (who is coming up next month), look no further than The Friends of The New Criterion.

James's best books of 2006

James writes:

  • The Triumph of Modernism: The Art World, 1985-2005 by Hilton Kramer (quoted here).
  • America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It by Mark Steyn (reviewed here.)
  • Honor: A History by James Bowman
  • Londonistan by Melanie Phillips
  • Romancing Opiates: Pharmacological Lies and the Addiction Bureaucracy by Theodore Dalrymple
  • Betrayal: France, Arabs, and the Jews by David Pryce-Jones
  • The New Ambidextrous Universe: Symmetry & Asymmetry from Mirror Reflections to Superstrings by Martin Gardner (reviewed here).
  • Landscape With Moving Figures: A Decade on Dance by Laura Jacobs.
  • Windows on Nature: The Great Habitat Dioramas of the American Museum of Natural History
    by Stephen Christopher Quinn (reviewed here).
  • Symbolism by Rodolphe Rapetti (reviewed here, quoted here).
  • The latest Jacob Collins catalogue from Hirschl and Adler, with essay by Roger Kimball. The catalogue is $25 from the gallery (quoted here). Note that the catalogue for Collins's previous show is now for sale on sale for twenty times that amount.
  • And then, of course....

  • Publishing: A New Low

    Dara writes:

    Everyone knows how the publishing industry has become increasingly corporate. Put in a call to the main numbers of the major houses and you will not reach a live person, but a labyrinthine voice mail data bank. Apply for a job, and you will be rudely telephoned after office hours by a person who does not clearly state her last name or her reason for calling. This happened to me yesterday.

    At 6:15pm, I received a breathless call by a woman who gave only her first name and the house from which she was calling. She mumbled quickly that she wanted to call me in to interview for an Editorial Assistant position. She did not say for whom--only, "someone who just got here"--nor did she state her last name. I was put off by her unprofessional manner, and as a result, was unable to say that I would love to come in for an interview, even if this position were not exactly right.

    When I asked her who had forwarded my resume to her, she could not tell me, as she "sources" resumes from so many different locations. The exchange caught me off guard and left a bad taste in my mouth.

    The Lay of the Land: Why the Long Face?

    Dara writes:

    I have a question for Richard Ford, whose new book, The Lay of the Land, just arrived in stores: why so glum? When I read the review of the new book by The New York Times critic Michiko Kakutani, I was struck by two things: her impatience with the minutiae of the main character's life, and the freakiness of the author photo: Richard_ford

    I recently heard Mr. Ford speak. He appeared jolly. Acerbic, yes, but hell-hath-no-fury-Dimmesdale-freaky, no.

    One of Ms. Kakutani's complaints about the book is how Mr. Ford allows space for every of his main character's ponderings, whether it's over death or dinner. In sum, she believes Frank Bascombe, the protagonist, takes himself too seriously, and that the writer fills his book with superfluous details. I am only about 100 pages in, but I aver that I've skimmed--whole paragraphs: something I never would have done in The Sportswriter or Independence Day, the first and second books in the Bascombe trilogy.

    I don't always concur with Ms. Kakutani's judgments, but I do admire her independence, and her commitment to the raison d'etre of reviewing: to judge. Her judgment of Lay of the Land? It is "an unnecessary and by-the-numbers sequel."

    In contrast, when the Times' film critic A.O. Scott reviews the book in the Book Review this week, he refrains from judgment. Even when he makes a criticism, he soft-pedals on it. Of Bascombe he complains:

    Spend three days driving back and forth from Haddam to Sea-Clift, and some of his mannerisms start to drive you crazy. Why does he insist on calling New York “Gotham”? He has an impressive history with the ladies, but when he talks about sex he falls back on fussy, schoolboyish words like “woogle,” “boink,” “woo-woo” and “raree,” which almost makes you miss Rabbit Angstrom’s lyrical evocations of pubic hair.

    But the point is, you must take Frank as he is, and admit him into your circle of intimates according to affinities that go deeper than literary taste.

    I'm wondering, why must I "take Frank as he is?" I certainly don't have to.

    Mr. Scott sums up his take as follows:

    By now, we have gotten to know Frank Bascombe well enough to take his measure, and to appreciate that, like almost no one else in our recent literature, he’s life-size.
    I suppose his point is that whether or not we care for Bascombe, we must admit he seems like a real person. This conclusion is a non-clusion. Finishing the review, I can't tell whether or not Mr. Scott liked the book, but I'm failry certain he wants Mr. Ford to like him.

    As I've mentioned before, I consider Mr. Scott to be a bit of a panderer. Whether he's cozying up to the Park Slope literary clique or the creator of a middle-aged dreamer stuck in his "Permanent Period," as Ford designates Frank Bascombe's zeitgeist, Scott forgets that in a reviewer, honesty is prized more than affability.

    Setting the Table: Yes, Please

    Dara writes:

    I gobbled up Setting the Table, the new book out from Harper Collins by successful New York City restaurateur Danny Meyer.

    Meyer has done extraordinarily well in a notoriously difficult industry, yet when he opened his first restaurant, the classic Union Square Cafe, in downtown Manhattan in 1985, he was operating basically by instinct. Meyer reveals in his book that his ideas begin in questions. In the early 1980s, when he was a high-earning salesman for a company that sold anti-theft tags to retail outlets, his passion was food and the question firing that passion was: "who ever wrote the rule that stuffiness and pretension must accompany great food?"

    Meyer had traveled to Italy many times as a tour guide for his father's travel agency, and he fell in love with the outstanding neighborhood trattoria he found there. He wanted Union Square to become a place that people returned to for the food but loved because of the service and warmth.

    And return people did. Union Square Cafe became a hit, but Meyer reveals in the book that because his father gambled unwisely in expanding his various businesses--travel agencies, hotels--his son resisted going bigger. Gramercy Tavern, Meyer's second restaurant, didn't come to life until the 90s. But the success of Gramercy Tavern begat Eleven Madison Park and the Indian-themed Tabla, which in turn led to The Modern, at the Museum of Modern Art, the barbecue joint Blue Smoke, and the burger place Shake Shack.

    I didn't necessarily associate creativity with hospitality, but Meyer cemented the link. He is brilliant when it comes to being nice. Take this illuminating story: a distraught woman walks into Tabla and lets the host know she's lost her cell phone and wallet in the taxi on the way to the restaurant. The host tells her no problem, of course he will extend her credit, but he goes one better; he tells Mr. Meyer, in the restaurant that day. A light bulb flicks on for Meyer: this woman will certainly make a story of her bad luck--why not turn her tale of woe into a tale of wonder about Tabla?

    Meyer finds an intern and asks her to start calling the lady's cell phone, which she does until locating the taxi driver in the Bronx. The interns scurries uptown and returns to match dessert with the missing phone and wallet. Obviously the lady is overjoyed. For Meyer, the math was simple: round-trip taxi fare from downtown to the Bronx, $30; a free glowing publicity, priceless.

    When Meyer began as a restaurateur, he flew by the seat of his pants. But as he became a CEO, he realized he'd have to put his hospitality philosophy into words. For him it went like this: your business is only as good as the people you hire to work with you. Meyer makes his employees a priority, even before his customers and investors. If his waiters aren't happy, they won't make his customers happy. Meyer made me see waiters differently. If I'm in a restaurant now and a waiter seems disgruntled, hard-pressed, bitter, I start to think about the environment in which he/she works. Suddenly I'm thinking, her bad mood isn't just about her, but a reflection on the management.

    Business books are not typically my thing, and the embossed cover of the book makes Meyer seem more like Tony Robbins than Robert Stone. But Meyer is a very good writer. He minored in English and Creative Writing at Trinity College. And I recall that a eulogy, reprinted in an issue of The New Yorker, which he delivered at a memorial service for FSG founder Roger Straus, was the best thing I read that year after the death of that much-written about publisher.

    Never Let Me Go: Not really an option

    Dara writes:

    Kazuo Ishiguro's most recent novel, Never Let Me Go, arrived on bookstore shelves in 2005, but landed in my apartment only a few weeks ago, since I'm too cheap to buy books in hardcover. I'm cautious and cheap; I want to hear what people I trust say about a book before I spring for it.

    People I trust seemed to like this one, and I'd already read Remains of the Day, and like others, admired the novelist's ability to communicate with understatement and grace his characters' inner lives. While that novel involves some of the obvious horrors of Europe in the Nazi years, Ishiguro describes events with great subtlety. He is an intimate writer in an age of broadcasters.

    Never Let Me Go revolves around three young people, Kathy, Ruth, and Tommy. Kathy tells the tale of their coming of age from the vantage point of a 31-year old "carer." We don't learn what that word means until quite some time later, but we do learn that as children, Kathy, Ruth, and Tommy lived in a boarding school called Hailsham.

    But this boarding school is not Exeter. A typical course of study doesn't constitute the curriculum. Rather, the kids paint, draw, and write, and then these works of art are collected to be placed in the school head's "gallery" for later use. The kids never receive exposure to the outside world. We never hear about parents; indeed, they don't seem to have any. The teachers are called "guardians," and the kids don't have last names. Ishiguro crafts a bizarro world that is both familiar and hauntingly strange.

    As in Remains, Ishiguro uses the plights of Kathy and her friends to meditate on serious subject matter, which I don't want to give away. While I don't feel the subject to be completely fresh, I do admire Ishiguro's method of discussing it. He doesn't present a single lesson or rant; rather, he suggests we ponder these young peoples' lives when weighing in on the larger subject he addresses.

    As vague as that last sentence of mine was, that is sometimes how vague Ishiguro's scenes are. Other than that the novel takes place in "England, late 1990s," we read no place or time markers. The absence of details makes it hard to get into the novel. I had trouble staying with the book when I first picked it up, and I had trouble picking it up each time I set it down. I feel I was able to finish it primarily because I have time on my hands right now, and I think it's a deficit in the book that one needs an abundance of leisure to become attached to it.

    Then again, Ishiguro's never been a warm and cuddly writer. His style is formal and distant. Yet, the formality that was so revealing in Remains is obtrusive here. For instance, instead of just plunging into a scene, he has the narrator Kathy say, "And now I should tell you about when we did X," or, "Before I tell you about Y, I should tell you about X." This technique slows further an already glacial pace.

    Ishiguro is interested in repressed characters, people who are unable to come to grips with their emotions when an event happens, and only years later can understand what they were feeling. He is interested in love deferred and lost souls. He uses quite an experimental mode in revealing these inner lives in Never Let Me Go, a book I ultimately respect more than I love.

    Kafkaesque

    Dara writes:

    The ending of Philip Roth's masterpiece, The Plot Against America, gave me chills. It strongly reminded me of Kafka's The Metamorphosis, in which, in a matter-of-fact tone, Gregor Samsa charts his transformation into a giant bug. While in English Samsa becomes a cockroach, in the original German, he changes into a huge insect. The lack of specificity in this phrase highlights its horror. The change is inchoate, literally incomprehensible. Language is at its limits when depicting the transformation.

    I was reminded of this descriptive technique of Kafka's when finishing The Plot. Roth wrote this book a few years back as a cautionary "what if" tale. What if, he imagined, anti-Semitic and wildly popular aviation hero Charles Lindbergh had become president during World War II? What would be the consequences for America's Jews and for the country itself? Through the eyes of a respectable, hard-working Jewish family in Newark, New Jersey, Roth exposes a dangerous turn of events that feels all too real. Jews are fired, involuntarily relocated, and, as in the case of Walter Winchell, assassinated.

    Our narrator is "Philip Roth" himself, aged 8 and 9. The traumas of the times visit him literally in his bedroom, in the form of his cousin Alvin, who is maimed fighting the Nazis, and his hapless and orphaned downstairs neighbor, Seldon Wishnow. Young Philip loathes Wishnow for his helplessness. When Roth's family is doomed to be relocated to Kentucky, Philip tries to intervene with a well-positioned relative, and inadvertantly gets Seldon and his mother relocated as well. I don't want to give away more, but suffice it to say that Philip's efforts to rid himself of his weaker doppelganger just bring the boy closer. At story's end, Roth writes that Seldon replaces the stump for which Philip cared when his cousin Alvin shared his room. Now, he writes, "the boy himself was the stump, and...I was the prosthesis."

    What is a prosthesis? In Greek it means an addition. In medical terms, it is a replacement for a missing body part. But the truth is that, like "insect," "prosthesis" can mean many different things. While we can't pin it down, we knows it incites in us revulsion and disgust.

    Can we give a Jewish reading of the word? In the context of Roth's book, Jews are a kind of prosthesis in American culture, an unwanted addition, something gruesome, something deeply resented, as by an amputee, even if inevitable.

    My favorite Roth books were the early ones. Portnoy's Complaint expedited by a few years my maturation process, since I read it at a tender age. I've kind of avoided American Pastoral and The Human Stain, because they seemed too misanthropic. Like Kafka, Roth seems to live with a lot of fear. And yet he can channel his dread into art, which is more than some of us can claim.

    Heat Wave

    Finishing Louise Gluck's newest book Averno outside in the sultry Manhattan July heat, even if it was the sultry and sophisticated Gramercy Park heat, made me hotter. Gluck's poetry is pitched at hysterical. Everything in her world, or, in this case, the underworld to which Persephone is consigned, is bleak and dire. Death is everywhere.

    Gluck uses the myth of Persephone and places her book at Averno, in Southern Italy, which the Romans considered the entrance to the underworld, to meditate on how one should endure, given the inevitability of obliteration--and further, whether there is a soul to persist after perdition.

    I guess I'm just not that deep; or, at least, that's how Ms. Gluck makes me feel. Consider these lines on what it's like to fall in love: "Guilt? Terror? The fear of love? / These things he couldn't imagine; / no lover ever imagines them." How forboding. As though love _always_ brings terror. This kind of desperation is so hot as to be cold, as to give one the chills (you know how a fever can do that?). And it made me consider the difference between cold and cool.

    Ms. Gluck is a cold poet. Some say she speaks "the truth"--but that's if the truth is icily fearsome. I guess I prefer poets who believe in heat and a reality that's warmly welcoming. Oddly, I think of these as cool poets; that is, they use form and decorum to shelter themselves from the wounds of searing passion--they trust passion, they just like to prepare themselves and be prudent in the face of its heat. Merrill, Auden, Stevens, these are the folks of whom I'm thinking. Like Mozart, they use linguistic sleights to tango with passion. With Gluck, on the other hand, you get the sense she's fucked passion and man, it's gotten her bad and now she's dead.

    There's that death word again. One can see why it crops up so much. If the only alternative to disaster is hysteria, no wonder she'd rather put everything on ice. Still, I do trust her language. I do know she's in command, and while reading Averno, while I might not have relished it, in fact, while it might have put me in a bit of a funk, I did know it was the real thing--or at least, _a_ real thing: one way of looking at our world.

    Nature Rules

    Well, you can decide that for yourself. Check out my review of Mary Oliver's reading at the 92nd Street Y. A packed house, two nuns, Mr. Pink. A great time.

    http://www.poetryfoundation.org/dispatches/readings.html

    Little Murders of the Soul

    Writer Vivian Gornick is absolutely brilliant about university life, which she names as soul-killing. To wit: "Here we sat...each being made neurotic by isolation of the spirit induced at an institution in service to the life of the mind." All hail!

    My own experience in academia of late has proven thus.

    Go here for VG's discussion of memoir-writing in Salon.

    When will POETRY become a SCENE?

    Despite my previously expressed misgivings about N+1, last night did find me at KGB's for a reading sponsored by the magazine. Really there to support a friend on the line-up, I used the opportunity to analyze the hipster crowd.

    The first thing I noticed was by golly, no one reads poetry. That is, I was reduced to standing in the middle of the room because the place was so packed. When I attend poetry readings at this joint, I can arrive 30 minutes late and still snag a prime place.

    Wunderkind Kunkel was reading. He looks a bit like if Redford's Sundance Kid shopped at American Apparel. Scruffy, slouchy, the kind of sensitive soul who seasons his prose with poetic terms such as calendula and devises enticing similes such as the surface of the lake looked like water tilted in a pan. Admittedly nice stuff, though vaguely aggravating to a poet; that is, folks like Kunkel probably shun poetry yet feel free to co-opt it for their own purposes.

    Anywho, I'd say the audience was 85% women. Lusty, downtown, thin, brunette, white women. Some in crocheted sweaters, some heading to a small Japanese bistro for sake afterward. The excerpt Kunkel read depicted the main character's forlorn and alcohol-abusing father. The words "fucked-up" featured prominently. So here's the thing. I feel like aforementioned hipster ladies can slip this au-courant reading in between shopping at Urban, dining on 6th Street, and sipping Maker's Mark at Black and White.

    Could a poetry reading similarly wedge so neatly in their trend-filled schedules? Perhaps. But the thing is this: the KGB reading was a _scene_, and thus schedule-worthy. The media do not create stars from poets as they do from novelists.

    Sigh. Tear. Where was that Maker's Mark.... 

    Joan Didion

    The obsession with details and the cool recording of facts that distinguish Ms. Didion's writing and that I revere, freaked me out in her transcript of the death in 2003 of her husband, the writer John Gregory Dunne.

    Has anyone read her White Album? Apparently it records from the edge of a breakdown. In the context of her intense sorrow, her compulsive compiling of minutiae--what Mr. Dunne had in his pockets, the medical literature on grief, the log book of their Park Avenue apartment--transcended technique and became coping mechanism. This reader gained a breathtaking look into a brilliant mind; astonishingly, even in suffering, Ms. Didion instructs: carry a notebook, always write it down.

    Creepy Book Recommendations

     

    Julie Saltman asks for books to read when you're suffering in a downtown St. Louis Starbucks from a tornado-induced blackout. How about Ian McEwan's Saturday to get the blood pumping? Read Edward Champion's discussion of it, or Zadie Smith's interview with McEwan. It's just so cozy, two Booker-Prize long-listed writers mooning at each other. What I like about Smith's writing is that she's right:

    Picking up a book by McEwan is to know, at the very least, that what you read therein will be beautifully written, well-crafted, and not an embarrassment, either for you or for him. This is a really big deal.

    What I don't like is how falsely modest and pandering she can sound:

    Because of the posh university I attended, I first met McEwan many years ago, before I was published myself. I was nineteen, down from Cambridge for the holidays, and a girl I knew from college was going to Ian McEwan’s wedding party. This was a fairly normal occurrence for her, coming from the family she did, but I had never clapped eyes on a writer in my life.

    She's such an ingenue.

    Self-hating?

    Last May, I attended a riveting discussion among Daniel Mendelsohn, Andre Aciman, and Louis Begley on literature and exile and Jewish identity at downtown's new Museum of Jewish Heritage. Perhaps the high point of the talk was when Mendelsohn, a skilled moderator, asked Begley if he felt any responsibility in his writing to depict the Polish world he'd left behind, just after WWII, and which had been lost.

    Begley replied, in some apparent confusion, "But that world is exactly as I left it. I can go back and visit, so why would I need to restore it?"

    Remember we're at the Museum of Jewish Heritage and we're talking about Nazi-occupied Poland. Grumbling from the audience, loud shifting in seats.

    Ever the able host, Mendelsohn responds, "But Louis, we're talking 3 million Jews. Obviously there has been loss."

    I suppose Begley agreed, but what he seemed to be saying was, "I'm Polish before I'm Jewish, and Poland remains." I scorned his apparent self-hatred, but I could also relate. I have sort of adopted German culture as my own, and at times I've wanted to think being an intellectual comes before being Jewish. But I've found that studying German art and literature without the atrocities represents a painful masking of my religious identity.

    How much can art really do? And in the face of actual historical events, how solid are one's cultural and intellectual affiliations?

    In Begley's first book, Wartime Lies, which I finally read this week, the narrator comes across as an aesthete, a lover of literature who seems to have faith, which the author himself might share, that  the SS couldn't destroy the Polish high culture he loved. 

    I respect his conviction but I wonder if Begley's extreme reserve didn't suppress a deeper reservoir of emotion and conflict.

    Friendships have their own rules

    Real issues should underpin every tale. Beverly Gologorsky writes about the women's and anti-war movements of the '60s and '70s, which brought together and divided her and a dauntless activist named Jessica.

    Back up. OK. I went to a reading at the KGB bar this evening hosted by Suzanne Dottino--who does a great job managing and moving along the event so you don't feel like digging your nails into your palm until it bleeds. The reading honored the new anthology of essays about women's friendships, The Friend Who Got Away.

    Gologorsky structured and paced her piece well, keeping you in suspense about the outcome of the friendship and the march-organizing that corrupted it. But structure and pacing themselves don't good writing make. I'm always amazed by how competence can mask banality. Why do I go to so many readings of finely efficient writers who have nothing to say?

    Lydia Millet has a good deal to say. She read about beauty enthralling and yet unnerving her. She finds "something inhuman in the lack of blemish." I enjoyed her precise writing but wondered if she equated fastidiousness and virtue.