I expected more. Or at least more specificity. Our introduction to this series was Good Night Charleston which is filled with specific references I expected more. Or at least more specificity. Our introduction to this series was Good Night Charleston which is filled with specific references to local landmarks of the Low Country. But this... I mean, skiers? That could be anywhere. Cows and a moose? Country store? Give me a break. Maples and "mud season" do not a Vermont scene make. "Swimming in Lake Champlain" is about as specific as it gets....more
This is one that's hard for me to rate, and harder to (begrudgingly?) recommend. With a 1986 original publication date, a lot of the ... problematic (This is one that's hard for me to rate, and harder to (begrudgingly?) recommend. With a 1986 original publication date, a lot of the ... problematic (i.e., "not-so-woke") things about this novel are explained in-context as artifacts of the period but still... BUT STILL. (Even in 1986, as a goddamned child I knew that no Black person wanted to be called a Negro. And I certainly never had someone tell me "that's very White of you" when I did something ... decent and kind?)
But there's also so many passages where I was eagerly highlighting and tapping A. to be like "Can I read you something real quick?" and just whispering "yikes" to myself.
It might take me a while to produce a single passage that seems to summarize the whole damn theme here, but if forced to pick one under the gun, it might be some combination of these three:
A group of sportswriters together can narrow your view far beyond pessimism, since the worst of them tend to be cynics looking only for false drama in the germs of human defeat.
...and...
Sports are always a good distraction from life at its dreariest.
...AND...
Sportswriters are sometimes damned bad men, and create a life of lies and false tragedies.
Wherein we have the story of Frank Bascombe, whose life seems to have (for the most part) fallen apart in a myriad of shallow and deep ways. But we're left to wonder whether Frank has any depth to him at all (he certainly claims not to) and to further question the extent to which life has any depth save what we ascribe to it and (in something of an existentialist turn) whether we're too busy trying to ascribe that meaning rather than just ... experience it? Only even that is left to some doubt, given that Frank's own philosophy approaches contentment-through-stasis.
But is that even wrong? Except that we're also easily casting doubt on that because even Frank's own sense of stasis seems to be borne of novelty, and of avoiding attachments. Or are we trying too hard?
This seems like one of those Too-Smart-for-His-Own-Good White Guy™ books, but there's also enough in here that it's hard not to take a step back and say "maybe I will recommend this to folks" -- that it's NOT just so much High Lit Wanking? You tell me.
There is this strong temptation to liken Millhauser to Borges. It's the style--the touch of magical realism--the way these stories are crafted as if tThere is this strong temptation to liken Millhauser to Borges. It's the style--the touch of magical realism--the way these stories are crafted as if they were academic papers on people that could never have lived, as if they were found journals of impossible experiments, as if they were mythologies transmuted into historical records. And it is not that this is too lofty of a comparison, but if Borges is strip-mining the subconscious then Millhauser is rooting around in the tailings--but even if he's salvaging from the waste, it must be a rich vein, for he's still far more successful than most other attempts in this style.
But as I worked my way through this collection, the comparison to Borges came later. The first comparison that came to mind was as I was reading "The Dome". My thoughts became: Well this seems like something George Saunders would write. But with all the humor sucked out of the irony, and all the wit drained from the parody.
The stories collected in Dangerous Laughter all appear to focus heavily on two of the major chords from late-twentieth century fiction: obsession with replication and simulacra; and a flavor of solipsism that seems a dry parody of itself. Not that these characteristics make the stories unenjoyable, or unoriginal. But they do not captivate. They set up their themes against a template of Oblique Universal Allegory, and then construct subject characters and settings at arm's length. It seems impossible to get close to anything in these narratives. (And this being despite Millhauser's own "Versimilist" obsession with inserting and describing minutia in all its banal detail.) The abstractions Millhauser engages just make them feel that much more antiseptic or detached. And for all the places where the stories succeed, it's this asymptotic relationship to the associable and relatable nuance, that is where they fall down.
---
Further reading: ‧ "The Illusionist", D. T. Max - ...more
A strong collection for King; a little of what I expect (i.e., schlocky horrorshow) and then some very awesome surprises. It's a bit more literary, a A strong collection for King; a little of what I expect (i.e., schlocky horrorshow) and then some very awesome surprises. It's a bit more literary, a bit more high-brow than what I expect from King — and those "keepers" are real keepers. There is some not-unexpected post-9/11 influenced overtones in places, but that just seems to be a framing technique for some more fundamental human horrors. In that respect, "Graduation Afternoon" is by far the pick of the litter.
Averaged rating on the 카지노싸이트 scale: 3.6923
Individual Story Ratings: ‧ "Willa" — ★★★★½ ‧ "The Gingerbread Girl" — ★★★ ‧ "Harvey's Dream" — ★★★ ‧ "Rest Stop" — ★★★★ ‧ "Stationary Bike" — ★★★★ ‧ "The Things They Left Behind" — ★★★★★ — like a more brooding, post-9/11 Skinny Legs and All? ‧ "Graduation Afternoon" — ★★★★★ — pretty heavy-hitting for "just" 7 pages; interesting, the way it drives home how superficial and petty class differences can be (and nicer still how the nuke is down-played and isn't even a big end-of-the-world thing but just an end of the world as she knows it). ‧ "N." — ★★★ — Lovecraftian and epistolary. ‧ "The Cat from Hell" — ★★★ ‧ "The New York Times at Special Bargain Rates" — ★★★½ ‧ "Mute" — ★★★ ‧ "Ayana" — ★★★ ‧ "A Very Tight Place" — ★★★★
SPECIAL SIDE NOTES: ‧ Multiple references to VT and ME (though ME references are more predictable); New England seems to be King's setting-of-choice for the supernatural. ‧ Also: what's King's deal with Florida? That seems to be his setting-of-choice for those non-supernatural but utterly base human-on-human destructive acts. ...more
Decent enough history of Vermont, presented as a kind of dictionary or (as the title implies) encyclopedia. Seems pretty comprehensive -- at least it Decent enough history of Vermont, presented as a kind of dictionary or (as the title implies) encyclopedia. Seems pretty comprehensive -- at least it had decent background information on everything that I did have time to look up. The introduction also contains a good overview of Vermont history.
On the "con" side of things... The many of the sentences (especially in the introduction/historical overview) had awkward phrasing -- nested dependent clauses and other awkward arrangements. Just seemed to take too long to unpack what the authors were trying to say sometimes. Also, the book is big -- and sometimes that means your eyes get lost on the page....more
A solid ★★★★ and damn near close to ★★★★★ that we'll settle for ★★★★½. But then again, I'm a serious Sedaris fiend.
When You Are Engulfed In Flames makA solid ★★★★ and damn near close to ★★★★★ that we'll settle for ★★★★½. But then again, I'm a serious Sedaris fiend.
When You Are Engulfed In Flames makes Sedaris' previous collection, Dress Your Family in Corduroy and Denim, seem like a disaster, a complete train wreck. Which is unfair because I think that Dress Your Family in Corduroy and Denim is a strong collection with some exemplary essays. And also because I get the feeling that it was a more personal werk for him, that he's a bit more exposed and vulnerable in those essays.
Thematically, When You Are Engulfed In Flames is a reprise of Me Talk Pretty One Day -- highly focused on language and style, on the humanity of humiliation and (to echo some other reviewers) those dark places where our sentimentality tends to get the best of us. But it's a counterpoint melody to Me Talk Pretty One Day -- arrogant where the other was modest, chagrined where the other took delight.
Structurally, this collection is an echo of Naked, though a bit more mature. As I wrote of DFW's Consider the Lobster, the essays are arranged well, jokes from earlier essays recurring, serving to inform your tittering later on. That said, the individual essays seem to follow a rhythm that is new for Sedaris. If this were an elementary school music class, I would say that his earlier essays have a rhyme scheme that goes ABAB, these are turned more toward ABCA.
But if you're reading this, it's probably because you were curious what I thought of When You Are Engulfed In Flames. By now, you (dear reader) have already made up your mind about David Sedaris and have either worked your way through this collection or else long ago discarded him, irrelevant as an expended filter tip....more
(I don't have it in me to review now. [Incentive to re-read?] Needless to say: this book was amazing. It would have been so easy to screw this up but (I don't have it in me to review now. [Incentive to re-read?] Needless to say: this book was amazing. It would have been so easy to screw this up but Lethem nailed it. He's become one of my favorite writers.)...more
I would be willing to say that Max Brooks has given us a "new classic" of zombie literature in World War Z. The nove**spoiler alert** Where to begin?
I would be willing to say that Max Brooks has given us a "new classic" of zombie literature in World War Z. The novel is well-structured, is well-paced, and seems so ... plausible.
And when I say "plausible", I mean the Brooks has tried to carefully -- though not necessarily exhaustively -- look at the current geopolitical climate and imagine what a sudden "zombie" outbreak scenario would look like today or in some tenable near-future. Brooks makes what seems to me to be a sincere effort to leave no logistical stone uncovered: how does the plague spread? what are the consequences of a government cover-up? what about the navies and submarines? what about satellites and GPS? how do you "quartermaster" an army that is on foot going up against "the undead"? He tried to cover all the bases in as realistic a way as possible. Considering such an unrealistic scenario. Again: Brooks is not trying to be exhaustive but considering where he puts his focus, he certainly comes across as inventive. He gives us some sadistic twists throughout the narrative; for every up-lifting deus ex machina near-miss (e.g., Col. Eliopolis and "Mets Fan") there is some grim and ironic counterpoint (e.g., the slaughter at ship breaking yard). Wisely, Brooks tries to keep these stories diverse: military and civilian; American and Chinese; young and old; optimistic and jaded. He does not waste a great deal of energy discussing "Zack"; there is no in depth technical discussion of the virus -- just a few allusions to methods of transmission (those bites) and then we move on to what matters. That is where Brooks keeps the focus: it's on how people -- be they individuals or entire governments -- react to these extreme scenarios. And he does a decent job peeling the peach of the technological modernity while he's catapulting us through this tale.
Two closing points:
(1) Brooks is also graciously humble. He cites George A. Romero in the acknowledgments; can't get far with your zombie mythos without giving the right credit.
(2) This novel had but one thing keeping it from a full five star rating: many of the voices are not really distinct. We are presented with the novel as if it were a historical document -- the transcripts of interviews with survivors from "World War Z". But reading it, you can't help but think that the government official sounds an awful lot like the feral child that sounds a lot like the retired Indian army grunt... But don't let that stop you: there is plenty else in this novel to warrant reading it.
UPDATE: * Almost forgot... Did anyone else catch the thinly veiled Colin Powell/Howard Dean administration in there? I'm like 88% on the thinly veiled Powell and approximately 111% on the thinly veiled Howard Dean....more
If you're going to own one (and only one) Vermont trail guide, this is it. It seems easy to find resources about hiking the Long Trail -- everyone knoIf you're going to own one (and only one) Vermont trail guide, this is it. It seems easy to find resources about hiking the Long Trail -- everyone knows a starting place, every visitor center points out a trailhead, every VT hiking guide references the white blazes... But there are also dozens of hikes throughout the state that are harder to find, that fewer people have heard of, that are rewarding but kept nearly a secret. This is the book that has THOSE hikes. It has great, easy-to-follow maps and is well-written in that "actually, we do kinda live here" Vermont sort of way (e.g., "watch out for the aggressive dog that lives around here")....more
This is a good "starter" trail guide for new hikers in Vermont. It gives a good cross-section of hikes throughout the state of Vermont and across all This is a good "starter" trail guide for new hikers in Vermont. It gives a good cross-section of hikes throughout the state of Vermont and across all difficulty ratings. If you are new to hiking (and new to Vermont) then this is the perfect book for you.
That said, if you are a more experienced hiker, you are going to outgrow these 50 hikes very quickly. In that case, I would recommend the Green Mountain Club's Day Hiker's Guide instead....more
**spoiler alert** SCENE: Samuel R. Delany, sitting at his writing desk, surrounded by books (some on shelves, but most piled on the floor), circa 1973**spoiler alert** SCENE: Samuel R. Delany, sitting at his writing desk, surrounded by books (some on shelves, but most piled on the floor), circa 1973; a man walks into the room.
- Delany and the man stare at each other. They both stroke their beards.
Delany: "Who are you?"
The Man: "Don't you know? They sent me."
D: "Who? Who sent you?"
TM: "It doesn't matter. I'm here to tell you that it's OK. They told me to tell you that we're not really competing. Not really."
D: "And who are you...?"
TM: "I told you, didn't I? Anyway, it doesn't matter. Nice place. With the books and all that."
D: "Thanks?" (pause) "So what is it that's supposed to be 'OK' by 'them'?"
TM: (picks up a stack of papers from next to the typewriter) "Good shit. Run with it."
D: "But you didn't even read it?"
TM: "I don't have to. Look, I've already been there. I've been in it. I know it. I've lived for Christ's sake. This is us."
D: "What do you mean?"
TM: "What do you mean 'what do I mean?'? Isn't it obvious?"
D: "Is it? I would guess not because I'm asking you."
TM: "Maybe... Maybe... It's shared though. What's on these pages--" (TM slaps the ream of pages) "--these pages are shared by you, by me, by everyone that does this kind of work. Everyone that has ever put pen to paper or pressed a typewriter key and called the output 'science fiction'--those people are us. And we all share this vision. This is shared. It's... Well, there's a man--he'd be about 25 now--he will call it--" (he slaps the ream again) "--he will call this a 'riddle that was never meant to be solved'--and this is what he'll mean when he calls something else a 'consensual hallucination'."
D: "Those are some sexy phrases."
TM: (strokes his beard) "Aren't they? But not gratuitously so."
D: "And even if they were..."
TM: "It's a fine line between gratuitous and... and... Indicative of...?"
D: "...of what?"
TM: "Exactly. There's nothing wrong with sexy." (slaps the ream again) "As a matter of fact. Do it up. Do it way up. You'll never get another opportunity like this."
D: "But I can write whatever I want."
TM: (laughs, snorts) "Not like this. This one is indelible. You only get a chance to do a novel like this once. Don't screw it up."
D: "That's not fair. This won't be my only 'good' novel."
TM: "That's not fair either. Don't put words in my mouth. Some of your other work is good. Babel-17 is good. Nova was good, too. But this..." (TM shivers) "The stuff you're doing with that Caulkins character? As an anti-Merlin? Good stuff."
D: "Anti-Merlin?"
TM: "Sure. Isn't he kind of a stand-in narrator? Like the Arthurian Merlin? Or like that Tolkein guy did with Gandalf. Or that 'Old Jew' character in that Miller guy's book... What was it called? 'Chronicle of Liebermark'? Something like that?"
D: "Canticle?"
TM: "Whatever. My point is... It's a smart move. He's like that. Omniscient and omnipresent--only not. He's knows everything--but only second-hand--and he's never ever physically present. It's twisty-turny. The ugly hands, the never-present authority figure..."
D: "What's this about the hands?"
TM: "Don't be coy. I hate it when you do that. They hate it when you do that. You don't want to piss them off. You know how long it took me to pay off that piper?"
D: "Who are you?"
TM: "I told you already! Look, it doesn't matter. Just listen. This is important. Don't screw up Kemp. This 'Kemp' character of yours is important. Captain Kemp? You remember? Have you written him in yet? Well you need to. He is your vehicle for summing it up. Look, the readers--the ones that get it--and not everyone will get it--and that's fine, they don't need to--I'm just saying, the ones that get it--Kemp's dialogue will resonate with those readers. If you haven't already--" (he quickly leafs through the ream) "--you'll write this passage--from Kemp's point-of-view--about his trip to the moon. Now when you write it, he will be talking to this--uh--to The Kid and he is going to have to admit how his trip to the moon is not something that you can describe. And--and this is important--that since he can't--since no one can possibly describe it, that there is almost no point in trying to--so instead you just tell them what they want to hear."
D: "But that isn't what I want to do at all!"
TM: "But it's OK. I told you. They sent me here to tell you exactly that. That it's OK to tell it this way. Look, there's going to be this pool of readers--" (TM throws his hands up in a huge circle that encompasses his entire girth) "--that even bother to try to read this thing. Now remember that the total pool of readers is much bigger. Bigger than this room, bigger than this apartment--probably bigger than this whole city. But this circle--" (TM makes an obscene thrust of his pelvis through the circle of his arms) "--represents everyone that will even crack the binding on this one. Are you with me? These are the people that give a shit. And these--" (TM makes the circle half the size that it was) "--these are the people that will see it through to the end. Still with me? Most of these--" (he makes the obscene pelvic thrust again through the circle) "--most of these people are themselves writers. Or at least aspiring writers. Now, you remember earlier when I was talking about how this--" (TM slaps the ream of paper again) "--this represents some kind of shared knowledge between you and me and all of them--" (again with the pelvic thrust) "--well if anyone is going to get it, it's going to be these people--" (he shrinks the circle of his arms again) "--OK? Which isn't even to suggest that they'll follow every last lead that you put in there. After all, no one but you is going to be even able to be intimate with the piece on that level. But these people--" (once more with the thrust) "--will know that maybe what you're doing with Kemp, maybe his whole bit of dialogue to The Kid, that maybe that's the real crux of the narrative. That you cannot possibly hope to share every last detail as it transpires in your own mind. So you bash away on those keys and hope that enough of The Shared World comes across that they will recognize the Kemp dialogue for what it is and recontextualize the whole thing with that as the baseline modulator."
D: "So what you're saying is that--as the author--you can never really get it right? So don't even try?"
TM: "No, I'm saying that you can't get it to be accurate. You can get it to be right. But you have to--first--trust your readers; and--second--trust that your voice conveys the meaning (for whatever that word is worth [TM mutters:]). Casting the setting is as much in the hands of the reader as it is in yours. You stretch the canvas, your reader applies the paint."
D: "What else?"
TM: (stokes his beard) "There is no 'what else'! I thought you knew that. They thought you knew that! Seriously, you go all meta-narrative in this thing and then you hit me with a 'what else' like it's nothing?"
D: "But--"
TM: "But nothing! The writing-within-the-writing thing is great. Your last chapter is a killer. An absolute killer. It's a shame that you can't do the whole thing like that. Can you? Can't you? In another 27 years there's a guy who is going to do this in a pretty epic fashion. Anyway, I--" (TM trails off for a second) "--I can see how maybe you can't get away with it this year. Or even next? Anyway, look it'll still be strong."
D: "You think so?"
TM: "Oh yes. You've created some interesting dichotomy. You've got your narrative and then the meta-narrative it contains. And within that meta-narrative there's only ever two kinds of anything. The poems, and the journalism. 'Brass Orchids' and 'the paper'. The Kid and Caulkins, the narrator and the never-present. It's a good trick."
D: "It's more than a cheap trick, you know."
TM: "I didn't mean for it to sound like I was calling it a cheap trick." (TM sighs) "Anyway, I better get going. I'm supposed to flash-forward and steal my cybernetic facsimile."
D: "They do that in the future?"
TM: "Not in any useful way. Nothing that's going to help either of us." (TM starts to go out the way he came in)
D: "Wait! Any other advice?"
TM: "Sure. Play down the whole 'Grendel' linkage unless you need to force your hand. Let people slip into Greek classicism for their comparisons. It's their own folly." (TM pulls his head off, tucks it under his arm and walks out)
- Delany looks down at the ream with something between scorn and satisfaction. He rolls a joint using one of the pages as his paper, and starts to read through the manuscript after he gets it lit.
------
See also: ‧ at io9 ‧ at the Huffington Post...more
NOTES: * main conflict: maturity vs. youth * climactic moment: the record shattering on the street * Jane vs. Sally -or- Sally vs. Phoebe?
re: shelved as NOTES: * main conflict: maturity vs. youth * climactic moment: the record shattering on the street * Jane vs. Sally -or- Sally vs. Phoebe?
re: shelved as "Vermont"? -- a mere mention of the Green Mountain State is all it takes for me to put a book on my "Vermont" GoodReads shelf....more
This book is incredible. It's easy to read and full of useful tips. As a novice gardener, it helped to make the planting/sowing process a lot less intThis book is incredible. It's easy to read and full of useful tips. As a novice gardener, it helped to make the planting/sowing process a lot less intimidating and has helped me to actually yield some fruits. Having shown the book to some more experienced gardeners and getting their feedback as well, this really does seem to be the best overall book for organic gardening....more
This is not a review: A mind-bending read that I cannot recommend enough. Stunningly creative, brilliantly executed; bone-chilling, soul-touching. PilThis is not a review: A mind-bending read that I cannot recommend enough. Stunningly creative, brilliantly executed; bone-chilling, soul-touching. Pile on the superlatives....more
Loading...
